archiving as opposed to backing up

From: Vintage Computer Festival <>
Date: Wed Sep 22 13:43:39 2004

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Patrick/VCM SysOp wrote:

> Funny you should say that Sellam. I've been thinking a bit about their
> business model since the topic came up. If they're using RAID 0+1 (adequate
> and cheaper than RAID 5 for this application), and assuming they use
> "street" 73GB SCSI hard drives, then, ignoring the processor the drives are
> connected to, it would cost them over $400 for 73GB worth of drives (a pair
> for 0+1, SCA), but they're selling it for less than $150. And that doesn't

Well, let's see here: 73GB / 5GB at the $9.95 level = about 14
subscriptions = $140 per month so they break even in 3 months. Not bad.

> include the cost of the SAN, bandwidth, etc. SAN manufacturer-branded
> drives are even more expensive usually. I wonder where and how their
> economy of scale is that makes it work. Maybe they're picking up Network
> Appliances from eBay. :-)
> There was an earlier comment about multiple data centers; doubtful, with
> these economics.

Maybe they're just doing it dirt cheap Google-style: just throw a huge
number of cheap hard drives at the problem and use lots of mirroring. If
one fails, throw it out and replace it, then re-mirror.

Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer Festival
International Man of Intrigue and Danger      
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers   ]
[ and academia at  || at  ]
Received on Wed Sep 22 2004 - 13:43:39 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:31 BST