The article appears to measure "overhead" in bytes, whereas I would measure it in dollars. If I understand the technology correctly, twice as many slices requi

The article appears to measure "overhead" in bytes, whereas I would measure it in dollars. If I understand the technology correctly, twice as many slices requires twice as many storage hosts. In dollars, that's decidedly more expensive than using disks with twice the capacity. This is, perhaps, my general argument against what seems to be called "sharding:" $1k will buy 24 slots in a disk array but only 6 slots (if that) in a server.