|
|
|
|
|
by sciurus
5256 days ago
|
|
Let's say you expect to grow to 20TB of data. Storing that for one month on S3 costs $2,560 (standard) or $1700 (reduced redundancy). In contrast, a Dell R515 with twelve 2TB drives costs $7,000. In a year that's one-third to one-quarter the price of using S3. Implementing a tiered storage system yourself is pretty complex. Using this S3 gateway might be simpler, but it's not trivial (e.g. you'll need VMware ESXi just to get started). |
|
I.e. instead of VMware it'd be more useful for us to hook in with a FUSE-layer or a patched variant of a filesystem such as GlusterFS.
You're of course correct about the pricing. Their current prices cover some middle-ground but would need to be discounted to make it feasible for larger deployments. However, at the low-end (your 20T figure) the price seems already justifiable when you factor in staff and infrastructure costs (rack+power alone make up for half of the difference).