The providers like Amazon S3 and Backblaze B2 can still keep their lives MORE SIMPLE for a small premium. I'm not sure what that amount of storage is, but if a company out there has 10 Petabytes they probably should consider hiring a couple people and building it themselves, monitor it themselves, etc. I think you are absolutely correct at over some amount of storage. At less than 50 TBytes and if storage isn't already a core competency of a company, the company can't afford to hire people to focus on their storage like we can. We have redundant network providers, and employees that know how to compensate when one of the providers drops a link for a few hours. We have employees FULL TIME focused on the uptime for the service. We are monitoring for that, we have tooled up for that. Companies like Amazon S3 and Backblaze B2 have trained employees replacing failed drives 7 days a week, pretty much within an hour of when they fail. I just don't think it makes ANY sense to spin up local storage for a company and worry about it for less than say 50 TBytes. Personally, I think there is a sweet spot for cloud storage in total storage required. For comparison, on-premise HDDs are $8/TB NRC + $0.10/TB MRC (electricity cost to keep it spinning) Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze so I'm biased and you should keep me honest.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |