Re:Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens
by stavros on Monday October 21, 2024 @11:41AM
(#41905351)
That would mean that even with a million volunteer drives storing a file, you still wouldn't be able to depend on them, which is plainly wrong.
> Also the average value of data is very low, you don't want to be making many copies of for no reason.
The reason is that the value of that data is high to the archivist, since they want to preserve it.
Re:Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens
by TZubiri on Monday October 21, 2024 @01:34PM
(#41906362)
A million is out of the parameters of the case.
Realistically you won't get enough volunteer-storage to cover one IA. And even if you did, it wouldn't satisfy the mission requirements, which is to store reliably for decades all of the data.
Re:Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens
by stavros on Monday October 21, 2024 @01:39PM
(#41906413)
This isn't meant to be storage for IA, it's meant to be a distributed backup.
Re:Internet Archive breached again through stolen access tokens
by TZubiri on Monday October 21, 2024 @03:28PM
(#41907552)
Ah my bad, so it's not a replacement of IA. In that case it makes sense
If you have a raid, then you have 2 copies with like 99.99% availability and 5 mean time years to failure.
With a volunteer drive you have like ?% availability and ?% years to failure? You can't depend on it.
Also the average value of data is very low, you don't want to be making many copies of for no reason.