[microcolonel]

If I'm reading that correctly, it would only cost a bit over 500 bucks a month to host that whole archive on BackBlaze B2.

Furthermore it would not be so hard to translate Archive.org items to IPFS objects, if there were an effort to pin a significant number of them to storage and network.

[Endlessly]

Since numbers are not 100% clear...

(50 petabytes * 0.2% = 100 terabytes)

[$0.005 ($/GB/Month) BackBlaze cost]

[(50 petabytes) / (1 gigabyte) = 50,000,000]

(50,000,000 * $0.005 = $250,000 US$)

—————

Meaning based on my numbers, that is $250,000 USD a month to host 50 petabytes of data on BackBlaze.

[ramraj07]

That's a fraction of the AWS bills for many startups arguably doing absolutely nothing

[TeMPOraL]

They have VC money to burn. Archive.org doesn't.

Also, those backups would be (relatively) cheap to keep, but not necessarily to restore.

[jfkebwjsbx]

I would guess restore wouldn't be a problem. AWS or whoever would do it for free given it is a non-profit (in case of a disaster only, of course).

[sp332]

The effort is the issue here. There was this comment back when IA.BAK was in design phase https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9148576 And then this is all there was to show for it: https://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=INTERNETARCHIVE....

[microcolonel]

Yeah, I noticed that being a problem. My biggest problems with IPFS are hardly mentioned in their updates, and it's hard to tell if they have any interest.

I had constant issues with objects simply never (hours and many requests) being found, despite being pinned in several places; and the daemon sucked resources away from the system at an alarming rate back when I was trying properly.

With all that being said, maybe now is the time to look at it properly, the budgets are there. Maybe Juan, _prometheus, can find somebody to at least PoC this important application.

[dmd]

You're reading it correctly, but IABAK backs up 0.2% of the Internet Archive.