Hacker News Reader

Comment by moonboots | Hacker News Reader

For reference, this amount of data would require 190 backblaze storage pods ($7,384 for 135TB) totaling $1.4 million.

Is that pre- or post- Thailand flooding prices? (Have drive prices settled down again?)

And is there any redundancy included in your figures? (25 petabytes / 135 terabytes == about 190 pods)

Backblaze quoted this price before the flood at $120 for 3TB. I'm not sure if post-flood prices are back to these prices or what range of prices you can expect at this volume.

This figure doesn't include redundancy. Backblaze uses raid6, so the usable capacity is actually 117TB per pod[1]. With this configuration the final cost should be closer to $1.6 million.

  [1] http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2341206&cid=36834390

> $120 for 3TB

So even if you throw out the rest of the hardware and have zero redundancy, $40/TB * 25000 terabytes = $1,000,000.

(Of course, somebody has to ship and store over 8,000 HDDs, too.)

prices have settled down as in they are fairly stable now, but a terabyte still costs roughly double what it did before the flooding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com