Oh, Man, that'll teach me to look more carefully ;)
Oops.
Thanks for the awesome service. I've used SO for backups on and off, and I appreciate the tech work you do. I particularly like that you do client-side encryption. I just wish your UI was a bit better ;)
I must have been mixing up your service with diomede; IIRC, their techcrunch article was about letting you choose the levels of redundancy you want to keep.
I'll grant you that the bandwidth is certainly a price-factor, but your page talks a LOT about how you're higher latency than S3, and not everyone needs that speed for that price, etc, etc, and then your price comes out to be about 80% of theirs. Honestly, after reading your product positioning, I was envisioning it coming out to like 10%.
You're absolutely right that building a huge in-house storage network is a huge ordeal.. If you're worried about making it fast and scalable. What I want to do is to treat it as the equivalent of a huge tape drive- Just throw stuff onto it, and hope for the best.
I've been toying around with the idea of dealing with it entirely in application logic. Rather than RAIDing the disks, mount each one separately, and keep a hashtable of my files in memory with their full path, including redundant copies. Then, if a file fails, I have application logic try the backup copy.
Anyway, you know a LOT more about this than I do, so I'll shut up before I embarrass myself further.
My point is just that there's a lot of people in the market who have huge datasets currently, for various reasons. Lots of science departments, analytics groups, etc. I'd love to be able to keep an nearline copy of work.
I don't mind if it takes a good 15-20 minutes to be able to access the first byte, I just want to know that I can if I need to, faster than waiting for Iron Mountain to ship me something.
Side note- I considered trying to justify it under BackBlaze's "$5, unlimited space" offer, but I didn't think they'd go for it. ;)