alt Hacker NewsMeanwhile, just using disks and regular servers is still reliable and more so than ever, especially with some redundancy.
Consider your cloud costs.
Meanwhile, just using disks and regular servers is still reliable and more so than ever, especially with some redundancy.
Consider your cloud costs.
If you there's no SLAs to engineer for, just set the target at zero, and drive your cost to zero as well. So you have to design for _some_ defined value of reliability.
Backblaze's famous reports put HD failure rate is ~1.39%, so for the 11 9s you get as a guarantee from S3. Assuming nothing else fails, you'd need at least 6 independent copies to get that, plus all the effort to engineer recovery, and constant upkeep.
Suddenly, S3, even when considering bandwidth costs, seems like a steal.