News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Wayback Machine director outlines the scale of everyone's favorite archive. Parent comment

Re:Wayback Machine director outlines the scale of everyone's... by GordonS on Monday October 08, 2018 @04:06PM (#18170853)
> This is already factoring in 2x storage, so you just put each half in a different location.

My bad, I missed that!

> It is, but my core point is that it would be expensive even if the drives were free.

On reflection, and after reading your reply, I agree :)

> There was an estimate last year of $1500 for IA to store and serve a terabyte of data indefinitely.

I assume that's $1500 per year?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wayback Machine director outlines the scale of everyone's... by Dylan16807 on Monday October 08, 2018 @05:25PM (#18171456)
> I assume that's $1500 per year?

Total, not per year. Even S3 would only cost $250 a year to store a TB redundantly, and you could host 20 of them off a $200-per-month server or something.

Backblaze gets you a bit more than one copy for only $60 a year.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wayback Machine director outlines the scale of everyone's... by GordonS on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @04:00PM (#18179347)
I'm not quite understanding how storing a quantity of data indefinitely doesn't have an ongoing cost?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Wayback Machine director outlines the scale of everyone's... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday October 09, 2018 @08:28PM (#18180966)
Hardware gets cheaper and you can assume a small return on the money, I think. You could also just take it as a guess for 100 years of storage too.
[ Parent | on HN ]