[cc438]

So how does this work with the way Facebook delivers content? I understand the advantages of disc storage for a service like Amazon Glacier as the customer expectations are set for significant time and bandwidth constraints but Facebook is supposed to deliver personal data as fast as it can be served up. They've created a "customer" expectation of instant access that can't be provided by an offline disc.

It makes for a good solution as a 2nd or 3rd level backup but you'd need some form of RAID to prevent users from experience a lengthy delay every single time a disk fails. That's a lot of money to invest in a novel solution that creates a lengthy interruption in service should it ever be needed. Maybe the power savings are worth it when weighed against the rarity of such use and expected level of revenue lost to user frustration but that's an equation made fragile by so many variables.

I could also see it used in conjunction with some amazing use-prediction algorithm to store data that will most likely never be requested. If Facebook truly keeps everything then they have millions of photos, videos, hidden posts, and other digital detritus tied up in dead, inactive, or orphaned repositories. I know half the groups I joined back in high school are now impossible to find but the data they contained is still important for the purpose of linking people and interests together. I also have several friends who have passed away, making their account a kind of digital mausoleum. Their private data will never be accessed again but it must remain in FB's datacenter until someone is given access to the account to delete it. The number of Facebook accounts tied to the deceased is only increasing so these racks of Blu Rays might be considered the first digital cemetery. I don't know how many resources are allocated to this kind of data but this is where cold storage makes the most sense.