
Thanks a Million - cleverjake
http://blog.archive.org/2012/12/31/thanks-a-million/
======
mrb
With $1M they could only buy 4 PB of storage? That's $250/TB, too expensive!

For comparison, Backblaze deployed petabytes of storage at 1/5th the cost at
$55/TB (including server costs):
[http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-
budget-v...](http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-
budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/)

(In all fairness, Backblaze costs assume 3TB drives costing $120. Due to last
year's Thailand floods, a 3TB drive costs $150 today. But this only puts
Backblaze at $65/TB at today's prices, still a lot cheaper than $250/TB.)

It seems to me that archive.org could try harder to reduce their costs. I
can't imagine their workloads being much different than Backblaze (in both
cases, most of their data is being accessed/read rarely, with mostly slow
continuous writing/archiving.)

~~~
DanBlake
A very important difference is that 99%+ of backblazes bandwidth is inbound
(people storing their files). Inbound bandwidth is free at most datacenters.
Transmitting data (like archive.org does when you request to see a webpage) is
not and could account for most of the price difference you see.

This also does not count that archive.org likely needs more infrastructure
than BB does for serving files, caching, etc.. They are one of the most
visited (top 250) websites after all.

