Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It continues to amaze me that nothing comes close to simply colocating a NAS.

If you colocate a NAS, there's a significant chance that you'll lose all your data.

Amazon and Google, quite sensibly, don't want the bad publicity which would come with losing their users' data, so they replicate across multiple datacenters -- even Amazon's reduced reliability storage replicates to two datacenters -- which obviously increases costs.



[edit: figures were wildly off]

By definition, it's already the second copy of my data (since it's a backup).

For the price of S3 (~$5500/yr, not even including bandwidth), I could colocate 7 RAIDed NASes ($700 NAS, 4-year life, $50/month colocation fee).

If me and a couple of friends agree to exchange NASes to save on colocation fees, I could have 31 NASes for the price of S3.

For maybe 50% the price of S3, I could colocate a Backblaze pod and have 67TB of data storage, 22x my need.


Amazon S3 just announced a "Reduced Redundancy" version of S3 priced about 33% cheaper.

http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: