Comment by hansvm
2 days ago
Just a few PB, and sharding it across servers is fine.
It looks like all the disk-optimized examples on that site (still much more expensive than paying for raw disk, barely 5x cheaper than S3, when a disk-optimized colo solution only has ~3% overhead over the disks themselves) are through some no-name provider "HostKey". I suppose beggars can't be choosers, but in the contexst of storage (where systemic failures should be accounted for in the model) are you aware of more than one provider with reasonably priced storage?
I mean on that site you also have clouvider who are cheaper $423.79/mo for 72TB including bandwidth, compute and two extra boot SSDs. I just searched by a minimum disk size of 12TB.
Colo will be cheaper I'm sure but it's fundamentally a different comparison you have to pay for drive failures, networking, bandwidth, remote hands, network switches and so on and so forth.
Interesting, not sure how I missed that (edit: I missed the 4x on the drive count). Thanks for mentioning it.
And, yes it's a different comparison, but that's why I was asking; I was curious if it was even viable (and initial searches had indicated it wasn't). 4-5x cheaper than S3 as a substrate is potentially workable.
Yeah, I mean thats what like ~$4.9/TB/Month including 4TB+ of internet transfer at a substrate level. So with say 10 servers on 8+2 parity you're looking at ~$6/TB/Month including >5TB of internet. Probably makes sense until you can fill at least one whole rack and buy a 2X100Gb internet connection.