Slashdot Mirror


How To Add 5.5 Petabytes and Get Banned From Costco

concealment writes with this extract from GigaOm: "'We buy lots and lots of hard drives . . . . [They] are the single biggest cost in the entire company.' Those are the words of Backblaze Founder and CEO Gleb Budman, whose company offers unlimited cloud backup for just $5 a month, and fills 50TB worth of new storage a day in its custom-built, open source pod architecture. So one might imagine the cloud storage startup was pretty upset when flooding in Thailand caused a global shortage on internal hard drives last year. Backblaze details much the process in a Tuesday-morning blog post, including the hijinks that followed as the company got creative trying to figure out ways around the new hard drive limits. Maps were drawn, employees were cut off from purchasing hard drives at Costco — both in-person throughout Silicon Valley and online (despite some great efforts to avoid detection, such as paying for hard drives online using gift cards) — and friends and family across the country were conscripted into a hard-drive-buying army."

273 comments

  1. Wow by taktoa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

    1. Re:Wow by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2

      Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

      Website says $3.96/m for unlimited data. Something tells me this business model will not survive without some serious bandwidth limitations. After all, if you upload is limited to 100mb then you ability to (non commercially) fill Terabytes of data is limited.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlimited for one device, and if you're offline for 6 months, they delete your data. They don't have offsite backup, so if you or their admins do a mistake.....you will have to reupload.

      But if you just need a little bit extra security for your existing backup, they provide a good value.

    3. Re:Wow by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

      Run the numbers. 50 TB a day sounds like a lot, if they've only got one customer. But they're probably got "a zillion" which would imply your very thin slice of the upload bandwidth is going to be choked to like a gig per day. The upgrade in my basement from (full) 1 TB drives to 2 TB drives took around overnight, less than 24 hours anyway, but over the net at a gig per day would be about 3 years to fully convert. Even if they're not limited I would have serious problems shoving more than 100 gigs/day thru my cablemodem, so thats at least 10 days.

      Another interesting thing to analyze is $5/month is $60/yr, so subtract $5/yr for electricity to spin a drive, assume a drive lives 2 years (probably much longer) that means if you can buy a drive big enough to hold everything you want for less than $110, just stick a drive in your basement. Better bandwidth and latency too, I have gigE at home but only ten or so megs of cablemodem. $110 at tiger direct will get me 2 TB. So 2 TB is approximately the tipping point, use less and you're better off "self hosting" in the basement, use more and you're better off using their service (and they're likely losing money if you use more than 2 TB).

      Also I'm curious if its "unlimited" like cellphone or internet access is "unlimited" in other words they'll cut you off if they're losing money on you.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Wow by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who says Slashvertising doesn't work?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Wow by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

      Website says $3.96/m for unlimited data.

      Something tells me this business model will not survive without some serious bandwidth limitations. After all, if you upload is limited to 100mb then you ability to (non commercially) fill Terabytes of data is limited.

      My impression(from friends who use them) is that they aim pretty heavily at home-user backup scenarios who are likely to be comparatively light users and have severely limited upstream bandwidth. They also don't do Big Serious SLAs and similar. Nor do they support things like backing up mounted NAS volumes or non Windows/OSX systems(I haven't check to see if the client is smart enough to recognize a mounted iSCSI device... It isn't exactly rocket surgery to distinguish a block device hanging from the Windows iSCSI initiatior from a block device hanging off the Intel whateverchipset SATA 2 port; but if you go with 'NAS = SMB/AFP" you'd miss it.

      Still, convenient and cheap, if not as robust as solutions that cost more.

    6. Re:Wow by mrops · · Score: 1

      I'm actually on CrashPlan which also offer unlimmitted, they haven't complained yet for about a TB of data. All you calculations are good, I have onsite backup as well, but I have digital photos of family/freinds for about the last 10 years which are about 150GB and then bought a 1080p camcorder about 4 years ago and that footage is already in excess of 500GB. So I really wanted an offsite backup to go along with backup on my NAS. 4 years of unlimitted storage costed me about $140 bucks. I am fortuante to have 7mbps uploads so the backup between 8:00PM to 8:00AM (my providers unlimitted usage hours) took about 20-25 days buy was done just fine. I tototally recommend it.

    7. Re:Wow by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      They have some kind of cap/quota concept, as well as a maximum amount of transfer per a specific amount of time.

      It's the not quite unlimited kind of "calling it unlimited anyway".

    8. Re:Wow by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      There was a photographer who wanted to backup terabytes of data, and they told him, sure. go ahead.

    9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if you just need a little bit extra security for your existing backup, they provide a good value.

      No, it is not "good value". You are better off just buying a cheap NAS and keeping it at your friend's place. Same level of safety as Backblaze provides and, if Backblaze charges $4 per month, a lot cheaper in the long run.

    10. Re:Wow by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

      Run the numbers. 50 TB a day sounds like a lot, if they've only got one customer. But they're probably got "a zillion" which would imply your very thin slice of the upload bandwidth is going to be choked to like a gig per day. The upgrade in my basement from (full) 1 TB drives to 2 TB drives took around overnight, less than 24 hours anyway, but over the net at a gig per day would be about 3 years to fully convert. Even if they're not limited I would have serious problems shoving more than 100 gigs/day thru my cablemodem, so thats at least 10 days.

      Another interesting thing to analyze is $5/month is $60/yr, so subtract $5/yr for electricity to spin a drive, assume a drive lives 2 years (probably much longer) that means if you can buy a drive big enough to hold everything you want for less than $110, just stick a drive in your basement. Better bandwidth and latency too, I have gigE at home but only ten or so megs of cablemodem. $110 at tiger direct will get me 2 TB. So 2 TB is approximately the tipping point, use less and you're better off "self hosting" in the basement, use more and you're better off using their service (and they're likely losing money if you use more than 2 TB).

      Also I'm curious if its "unlimited" like cellphone or internet access is "unlimited" in other words they'll cut you off if they're losing money on you.

      The number I am looking at is 50TB/day means 578MB/sec all day and all night (i am presuming there is some amount of day/night load curve). That's a lot of bandwidth for one organization.

      But more practically, what are you doing to generate all that content? Even a serious photographer/videographer would be hard pressed to generate more than 10GB of backup-worthy content a day, especially not averaged over a whole week or month.

    11. Re:Wow by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Everything is backup worthy when it's unlimited storage at a fixed price.

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your NAS will cost more than $4 in electricity per month.

    13. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rocket surgery

    14. Re:Wow by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Your NAS will cost more than $4 in electricity per month.

      Not for a home NAS.

      A monthly increment of $4 on a typical US utility bill is equal to about 29½kWh of energy usage (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average in the US was $0.135/kWh in summer 2012). Consider a Synology DS213 with 8TB in two disks. Even if the disks were perpetually spinning, it would consume 13kWh per month. If the disks were spun down the whole time, usage would be 6kWh per month. In fact, the disks spend the vast majority of the time spun down, so the energy usage is closer to the lower figure. So that $4 per month for electricity is equivalent to having three or four of these NAS units in typical use.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    15. Re:Wow by Kotoku · · Score: 1

      My NAS can dump 4TB in a reasonable amount of time.

    16. Re:Wow by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Go ahead is right. It's good publicity for them, and you aren't going to find too many people with a pipe big enough to upload terabytes of data. First you would need a pretty fast upload speed, which discounts most home users, and you would also need to be able to use a terabyte of bandwidth in a billing period, or space it out over multiple billing periods. They are probably already limiting how fast they accept data from any one upload. For every guy they find who wants to upload terabytes of data, there's probably 10 or 100 who only ever use less than 1 GB.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    17. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 2

      That's fine, as long as you don't care whether your data is still there when you need to restore it. These guys are cheap because they're bucking the trend toward cloud storage for big data. Instead they're building their own "pods". Anybody who's doing manufacturing on that kind of scale needs to be a lot better at supply chain manageent. If they screw up something so central to their business model, what else might they screw up? How much redundancy do they offer? How glitchy are these home-brew NAS devices? What are the bandwidth caps?

    18. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Website says that $5 with discounts for paying in advance. Though I'm sure you're right about bandwidth limitations.

    19. Re:Wow by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      basically that's what they said. They asked him to stagger it over a period of a couple of months, but told him - $5/month, not a problem.

    20. Re:Wow by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a RED camera which shoots 18megapixel raw photos at 24+ frames per second. Backblaze hasn't throttled me at all and I have 20mbps upload speeds.

    21. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a common intentional malaprop. Get over it.

    22. Re:Wow by fragatak · · Score: 1

      right from their website: Backblaze will keep versions of a file that changes for up to 30 days. However, Backblaze is not designed as an additional storage system when you run out of space. Backblaze mirrors your drive. If you delete your data, it will be deleted from Backblaze after 30 days.

    23. Re:Wow by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, I'm a photographer and I have 5TB of storage in my computer and I use Backblaze. I recently had a 1TB hard drive die (controller failure). So I began to restore to my ample space on my other drives. The problem I ran into is that the restore file only gets hosted for 7 days and then deleted. So in order to restore I have to break up the restore into smaller bites and download them one at a time. My other option is that they will ship me an external 1TB drive for $189. I'm not on my fourth file download of the restore. I'll get all my files back but its a serious pain.

    24. Re:Wow by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      ... So 2 TB is approximately the tipping point, use less and you're better off "self hosting" in the basement, use more and you're better off using their service (and they're likely losing money if you use more than 2 TB).

      Also I'm curious if its "unlimited" like cellphone or internet access is "unlimited" in other words they'll cut you off if they're losing money on you.

      Hosting in your basement has its downsides. It doesn't account for
      1) Fires
      2) Floods
      3) Lightening Strikes
      4) Theives

      Also, they haven't cut me off so far so I think unlimited is really unlimited.

    25. Re:Wow by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      I was going to completely agree but then you didn't mention one more thing -- weather control. Even though, the heat may not be produced that much, it still causes the (quite closed) environment around it to heat up a bit. Therefore, your a/c would turn on more often. Yes, it may not be that significant, but it could have more effect during summer. It is difficult to measure this effect though...

    26. Re:Wow by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      ...(i am presuming there is some amount of day/night load curve).

      It backs up continuously so its probably more like a straight line.

    27. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason to use a service like this is offsite backup. If I have my computer AND my backup in my basement and it floods or there is fire I loose everything.

      I have used a few of these services and the first was Carbonite, they started throttling my bandwidth after 200GB, which I burned through in a year or two. I am just an average Joe, but I take a lot of digital pictures of the kids etc., I have about 750GB backed up through CrashPlan now, which is a bit more expensive.

      Now one neat trick with CrashPlan is they do Computer to Computer backs for free. So you get a buddy to set up themselves as a target and you can swap backups with each other.

      XFininity bandwidth limits are my other bottleneck.

    28. Re:Wow by guruevi · · Score: 2

      a) How much data do you really have?
      b) How much of it can be de-duplicated (they do data-center wide de-duplication)
      c) What is your upload speed?

      Realistically and I am a heavy geek user have:
      a) about 2TB (costs about $250 / 3 years today or $7/mo)
      b) around 18% (ZFS tells me so)
      c) 1Mbps

      Realistically most users have
      a) around 50GB (at the $250 for 2TB cost this is about $7 for the whole 3 years)
      b) around 25% (ZFS tells me so at work for ~300 home directories)
      c) 1Mbps or less

      So for the average user, the build cost of storing the documents is recovered in one month, the cost to run the operation is another month, the rest is pure profit once the overhead costs are reduced. The $250 / 3 years is the build cost for their storage systems (which where I work we have currently 90TB in a similar configuration) and the cost for racking, power and cooling is roughly $250 / 2TB (yield per pod is ~100TB / 4U) in those three years as well although we don't account for my cost which really we should but Backblaze has mentioned they run their entire multi-PB operation on 1 guy racking and a dozen or so people to do the rest (programmers, administration etc).

      Now imagine most documents, music and video files can be de-duplicated 100% given a large-enough user base. Most documents are downloaded from a site, most music and video is from the same sources (2000 seeders in Torrents, music from official shops).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    29. Re:Wow by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I doubt your NAS is keeping multiple copies across several devices. Backblaze does. Also, your NAS can't self-heal broken devices, Backblaze does. Also Backblaze doesn't complain about you having your shit in his house and his girlfriend doesn't unplug it to vacuum nor does Backblaze have friends that spill beer over it when there is a party.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:Wow by JTsyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a BLACK camera, what does that have to do with anything?

    31. Re:Wow by geekoid · · Score: 1

      RED not red.
      Capitalization use to mean something. OF course he could have linked.

      http://www.red.com/

      The implication is that he is going through a lot of data. A reasonable assumption, or else he is an idiot with too much money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a BLACK camera, what does that have to do with anything?

      RED is a brand of high end video cameras.

    33. Re:Wow by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I was going to completely agree but then you didn't mention one more thing -- weather control. Even though, the heat may not be produced that much, it still causes the (quite closed) environment around it to heat up a bit. Therefore, your a/c would turn on more often. Yes, it may not be that significant, but it could have more effect during summer. It is difficult to measure this effect though...

      And it would presumably boost your heating in winter, thereby contributing little or nothing extra to your electric bill. Around the year, the effects would likely come close to cancellation. This depends a bit on your local climate (Alaska vs Florida), but would likely still be small even in extreme cases - a heat pump with effectiveness of 4 would consume only a fraction of the ejected heat as additional electrical energy.
      FWIW, I live in Finland. Air conditioning is needed for maybe a week or two in most years, while heating is needed for more than half of the year. Many houses don't even bother with air conditioning, but every house has one or more heating systems.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    34. Re:Wow by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      RED is a brand of high end video cameras.

      And, as GP implied -- in what seems to have gone over the head of everyone responding -- the brand is irrelevant. The 18mp RAW photos @ 24+ frames per second was the relevant part.

    35. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His camera: http://www.red.com/. Your camera: http://www.black.com/. A tree possessing both properties: http://www.redblacktree.com/

    36. Re:Wow by steveg · · Score: 0

      In addition, Crashplan lets you back up to local drives and other Crashplan users. I have my home backups going to my office PC, and to a friend in Florida (I'm in California) as well as to Crashplan's servers. She backs up to me and to Crashplan.

      The initial backups took months, but the incrementals are fairly quick and easy.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    37. Re:Wow by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      you're always shooting? not much work out there. even with 10 REDs you'll only be making data when they're on and pointed at something :)

    38. Re:Wow by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i'm not sure you're aware, but one of those words came out bold.

    39. Re:Wow by icebraining · · Score: 1

      How did they screw up? They just found a way to avoid having to raises prices like many providers (HP, Dell, etc) had to, or face a big cut in revenues like Intel did (project $1 billion!).

    40. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stink if your house burns down, or floods or get's blown away in a hurricane.

    41. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 1

      How did they screw up? Are you kidding? You manufacture something and don't find a reliable source for parts?

    42. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red is the manufacturer. It is like someone saying they own an ASUS and you going my computer is BLACK. Derp.

    43. Re:Wow by icebraining · · Score: 1

      But they did have a reliable source. It just cost 300% because of the floods, so they hacked a cheaper solution.

    44. Re:Wow by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Crashplan+ is even cheaper and supports linux. I use it (got about 800GB backed up with 200GB more to add) and it works very well. Upload seems a bit slow but that might also be my crappy upstream pipe.

    45. Re:Wow by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 2

      My pipe is rather slow, but it's more than fast enough to use move terrabytes of data upstream. Most pipes over here in Europe are big enough for that, same for Asia, don't know what the deal is for the States/Canada/Australia. The thing is, the first full backup of all that data might take a while, but once it's done you only have to worry about new data.

      I'm a photographer as well and I use Crashplan (they supported linux) and they're priced similarly (even cheaper I think). The application they provide supports backing up your data to their cloud *AND* other media. The way it works for me is as following:

      - Backup to cloud (offsite online backup, new data gets priority)
      - Backup to local NAS (onsite backup)
      - Weekly backup to portable drive (offsite offline backup)

      All with one application.

    46. Re:Wow by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Switch to crashplan+. I use them and I don't get such stupid non-sense.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    47. Re:Wow by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Capitalization use to mean something. OF course he could have linked.

      http://www.red.com/

      Why are they yelling in the website's title?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    48. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RED is a brand name. www.red.com of course Ever watch Criminal Minds or Leverage? Shot on RED. Tons of movies too.

    49. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's racist!

    50. Re:Wow by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I agree that CrashPlan's terms are somewhat more agreeable, that's why I picked them over BackBlaze. Both are fine services though. The GP, though -- presuming that photography is his/her business and not just a rabbit-hole hobby like it is for me, $189 is entirely reasonable compared to the time/hassle described, especially since it would be a business expense that you'd write off on taxes.

    51. Re:Wow by davewoods · · Score: 1

      I read your comment while I clicked on the link. Immediately as I finished reading your comment, I read the title of the page (Yelling at myself internally) while I was still processing your sentence. Then I laughed.

    52. Re:Wow by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I do event photography and its a side business and not my main job. I shoot about 4-5 events a year and either break even or make a slight profit. Therefore the $189 could put over on costs for the year. However, I agree that in the grand scheme of things paying the $189 is not that big of deal.

    53. Re:Wow by cynyr · · Score: 1

      If my house here in Minnesota, USA blows away from hurricane I have bigger problems than my data in my "basement".

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    54. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      Bitcasa is currently offering free unlimited storage for beta testers.
      http://l.bitcasa.com/NH56X3u4

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    55. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His has a shiny paint job

    56. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      These guys are... building their own "pods". Anybody who's... screw[ing] up something so central to their business model, what else might they screw up?

      Google does basically the same thing, building all their own servers.
      http://www.google.com/green/storyofsend

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    57. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Can you read? I was criticizing their inept parts procurement, not the mere fact that they build stuff.

    58. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so fucking stupid?

    59. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      Can you read?

      No, of course I can't read. What an intelligent and perceptive question on your part.

      Your personal insult has definitely raised my opinion of you, and, I'm sure, suitably raised your credibility in the eyes of all slashdotters.

      I was criticizing their inept parts procurement

      You mean their adaption to a temporary environment of scarcity? How is that inept?
      Or do you mean their purchasing from places that provided the lowest prices? Again, that is not inept.

      ...not the mere fact that they build stuff.

      Well your focus on their manufacturing their own pods belied that.
      You said:

      as long as you don't care whether your data is still there when you need to restore it.

      and

      Instead they're building their own "pods".

      and

      How much redundancy do they offer?

      and

      How glitchy are these home-brew NAS devices?

      Certainly sounds like you're criticizing the fact that they manufacture their own stuff.

      As I said, neither adapting, nor finding the lowest cost parts is a "screw-up".

      But, your reaction has caused me to want to go back and pick-apart your original post, because there were more flaws than that in it. So, ignoring your spelling errors....

      >

      Unlimited storage for $5/mo? I have to get on this shit.

      That's fine, as long as you don't care whether your data is still there when you need to restore it.

      You have nothing but your speculation to support the idea that Backblaze is any less reliable than any other cloud service, otherwise you would have provided it.

      These guys are cheap because they're bucking the trend toward cloud storage for big data. Instead they're building their own "pods".

      *rolls eyes* Hello! "These guys" are cloud storage providers *sarcastic personal insult not added*. Or do you believe that cloud storage just magically appears without anyone providing resources for it? Maybe you think that the "cloud" in "cloud storage" is literal, and believe the data is stored in the sky? If that is the case, let me educate you: ALL STORAGE IS LOCAL somewhere.

      Anybody who's doing manufacturing on that kind of scale needs to be a lot better at supply chain manageent.

      And when your suppliers suddenly will only supply you with product overpriced by between 363% to 465%, you turn to new ones.

      The reason I know they were overpriced? Because I know that equivalent external drives were available for $165 (verses $600 for internal drives), because I read the original story.

      Many retailers are notorious for providing loss-leader hardware for less than wholesale. Best Buy, for instance, forced me out of business by providing computers for retail sale at prices lower than my hardware costs, let alone any time I spent researching and building them. And to this day people make money buying hardware on sale at Best Buy and reselling it on eBay, much to Best Buy's displeasure.

      If they screw up something so central to their business model, what else might they screw up?

      Changing wholesale market conditions != Screwing up.

      How much redundancy do they offer?

      A question no more relevant to Backblaze than any other storage provider.

      How glitchy are these home-brew NAS devices?

      A: Since they are a business, these "pods" are by definition, NOT "home-brew".
      B: Why would they be any less stable than any other assembled systems? Hence my reference to Google, who does basically the same thing.

      You are just

      _assuming_

      that they will have problems, becau

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    60. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      Woops! I accidentally put a bunch of [quote]'s where I ment to put [b]'s.

      Oh well.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    61. Re:Wow by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Why are you so fucking stupid?

      Calm down, APK. It's called a "joke".

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    62. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Get a life.

    63. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      That's good advice, you should take it.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    64. Re:Wow by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Working on it. Pro tip: it's a lot easier to do when you're not busy with 500-word online rants that nobody will ever read.

    65. Re:Wow by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      lol

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    66. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always bet on BLACK!

    67. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red is a brand, arguably the best video camera maker in the world. They also shoot RAW video which means the video takes up alot of memory

    68. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seek professional psychiatric help for your paranoid delusions. I asked you a question but it doesn't mean I am apk.

    69. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so stupid?

    70. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming from a stupid fool like you Ash-Fox? No thanks for your advice.

    71. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only joke around slashdot is ashfox.

  2. Can't they just... by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. buy direct or maybe some wholesale? Is such deliberate effort worth the actual cost?

    1. Re:Can't they just... by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      Genius! I wonder why they didn't think of that?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Can't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was at the time. The floods in Thailand did horrible things to the hard drive supply chain.

    3. Re:Can't they just... by Jumperalex · · Score: 2

      Obviously the answers are no and yes. They are likely way to small to buy direct and 1) get a good price and 2) even be given the time of day.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    4. Re:Can't they just... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was flooding in Thailand. Factories were disturbed. This company tried to grab as much of the drives already in the pipeline as it could.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Can't they just... by Zeromous · · Score: 2

      Seriously. It was so bad the people who make the harddrives couldn't even buy them, from themselves at full price.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    6. Re:Can't they just... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Costco gets such a good deal by buying in massive lots and handling distribution themselves that in fact it is worth the actual cost. I've been a costco customer off and on over the last few years and by remarkable non-coincidence I pretty much always check HDD prices. As well, I bought a pair of 1TB MyBooks when they were the big disk that Costco sold, and more recently I've bought a pair of 3TB GoFlexes. I like the return policy, and I can back up one disk to another (I disco the backup) and the two disks have very different service profiles so they're not entirely likely to die at the same time. And the prices were significantly lower than anything I could find from an even vaguely reputable retailer online.

      People have complained bitterly about how hard it supposedly is to get a disk out of a MyBook, I've never tried. I don't know anything at all about how hard it is to get the disk out of a GoFlex enclosure. But I do know that until very recently the prices on these external disks were actually better than buying internal disks online. I know (personally) a couple of people who went that route when building a desktop system, decasing externals from costco.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Can't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      think you may have missed this line

      "So one might imagine the cloud storage startup was pretty upset when flooding in Thailand caused a global shortage on internal hard drives last year"

    8. Re:Can't they just... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Count me in as having done this. TigerDirect had a 3TB external drive for $40 less than the internals! It was an absolute no-brainer to buy it and decase it. Sure, there's no warranty, but it's worth the risk to save $40 since hard drives rarely fail and when they do it's usually after a few years when you should be retiring them anyway.

      The case was a really shitty USB-only case, too, which was such a data bottleneck on the internal SATA drive that it would have been a colossal pain to use it as an external.

      I'm guessing the external drives are sourced through different channels that for some reason weren't affected as much as the internal drives? Otherwise it doesn't make sense that the external would be so much cheaper when you're buying "more stuff".

    9. Re:Can't they just... by Transkaren · · Score: 1

      In that situation? No. They needed to buy 14 drives a day to maintain their storage increase rate; the companies they usually used were out of drives, and wholesalers were selling to the big box stores rather than their corporate customers.

      --
      -If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
    10. Re:Can't they just... by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      There we floods in thailand which significantly reduced the supply of hard drives. Some vendors responded to this by imposing buying restrictions, some imposed caps on the number of drives that could be bought. Many did both.

      You would think that vendors would try and get as much money as they can for their stock and to an extent that is true. However for something like hard drives the picture is more complicated. If someone can't buy a hard drive at a price they consider reasonable they won't buy the rest of the bits to build a PC either.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    11. Re:Can't they just... by the_B0fh · · Score: 5, Informative

      some hard drives (western digital, iirc) are now sold without the sata interface on the drive itself, for external models.

      you rip it apart, and find out that you can't stick it onto a sata port...

    12. Re:Can't they just... by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      If not SATA, then what interface do they use?

    13. Re:Can't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's electrically SATA or USB interface, just not with the standard connectors

      This is old news, about 2-3 years already...

    14. Re:Can't they just... by mattventura · · Score: 1

      The controller board for the drive just has a USB port.

    15. Re:Can't they just... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Good idea, but here's the problem. Even the chain suppliers like Ingram Micro, Supercom and so on didn't have any supply to sell during the shortage. That's why companies had to get creative to find a new supply of drives. When wholesalers don't have any supply for you, you need to find other places who have a supply and buy them anyway you can if you need them.

      Our shop was buying them in bulk from Walmart, Bestbuy/Futureshop here in Canada. Because we couldn't get any through our normal supply chain.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Can't they just... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Another modded Insightful comment for someone who didn't read even the first paragraph of the corresponding article...

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    17. Re:Can't they just... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      it's electrically SATA or USB interface, just not with the standard connectors

      As long as you have the model with eSATA it oughta be a snap to get it cabled up inside your PC, but it will come with a cost premium so that's little help. Which disks does this apply to? I've never bought an external disk meaning to use it internally (back in the day, though, I did the reverse several times, when it was actually cheaper to do so) but I'm curious. I'm also curious if anyone makes adapters for these disks so that you can use them internally without wacky cabling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Can't they just... by Orphaze · · Score: 1

      I have never seen this, and cracked my fair share of external drives.

      Can you provide any proof or pictures of these alleged drives without proper sata connectors? I'd be curious to see what they look like, and I'm also slightly dubious as to your claims.

    19. Re:Can't they just... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Is there a way to add one yourself?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re:Can't they just... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      For one thing Dell just stopped selling Hard Drives altogether. Why? They had to still ship hard drives for warranty replacements and to builds in new computers/servers. You just couldn't buy the drive by itself.

    21. Re:Can't they just... by washu_k · · Score: 2

      I have a drive like this, a WD Elements 1TB. It's a 2.5" drive and the board only has a micro-USB connector.

      Not my pictures, just the first thing that poped up on GIS: http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f16/damaged-micro-usb-soldered-on-wd-elements-se-1tb-external-635019.html

    22. Re:Can't they just... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Dude, where were you a year ago? Under a rock?
      Basically the drives just did not exist. You know, supply and demand. Huge demand, very low supply.
      Here is the thing Costco could barely buy them direct/wholesale. What makes you think the supplier is going to supply a hand full to a small buyer when it won't even supply something like Costco?

    23. Re:Can't they just... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      " Hey, you're lucky you weren't alive during the Microsoft conflict. Hell, we were beating each other with our own severed limbs. "

      / JX ;-)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  3. interesting. by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    How does that company stay in the black? Whatever, just goes to show how creative some people can be to get around an obstacle.

    1. Re:interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Setting the bar pretty low for creativity there?

      "Wow, drives from the usual suppliers are pretty expensive... why not pop down and buy a few from the store?"

      "YOU CREATIVE GENIUS!"

    2. Re:interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a link in TFA to an older article about them starting up and how much it costs them to run their storage: apparently it costs them $94,563 for hardware, space and power for a petabyte over 3 years. That's about $0.0026 per gigabyte per month, so if users are charged $5 per month then they just have to gamble that the average user is going to use less than about 1.9 terabytes per month.

      Obviously that doesn't include a lot of other stuff like wages, but you're still gambling that a user isn't gonna have more than a terabyte of data in the system, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable gamble for now.

    3. Re:interesting. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Backblazeâ(TM)s pods cost $7,500 for 135TB or $55 per TB.

      Letâ(TM)s be generous and say one employee needs to maintain a Pod once per month for one hour (way higher than our server management). Letâ(TM)s assume they consume 1KW of power each. Even if the pod burned out every other year, unlikely but weâ(TM)ll be generous, to Amazon that works out to ($3750) + (12 months*$100/hr) + ($0.10/KWh * 24hr * 365 days) = $5826/12 = $485 per month / 135 TB = $3.59 per TB per month. Thatâ(TM)s assuming a 50% failure rate in HDDs per year.

      Letâ(TM)s also not forget bandwidth. Backblaze is looking to upgrade to 10gbps for their datacenter (OC-192). Which runs about $200k per month from what limited data I could find. They currently have 40Petabytes which works out to $200k/40kTB = $5 per month per TB.

      So our total is about $9TB per month for Backblaze
      vs
      $30TB per month for AWS.

      But thatâ(TM)s just my estimate. You could easily cut almost all of those support time costs. You could very easily get 4 years not 2 years out of a pod and you could probably use green drives that use less than 200watts cutting your power by 80%. In other words $9TB is generous and assuming that they actually need 10gbps right now.

      Backblaze's official numbers are $100k per 3 years for 1PB.
      http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/

      $100k / 36 months / 1,000TB = $2.70 per TB per month.

      Most people probably have $1TB of backup needs.

    4. Re:interesting. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to compare here (Amazon AWS?). Amazon S3 is not the equivalent of Backblaze. Amazon Glacier is.

      At lowest prices*:
      Glacier: $0.01/GB/month -- $10 per TB per month
      S3 Standard: $0.125/GB/month -- $125 per TB per month
      S3 Reduced Redundancy: $0.093/GB/month $93 per TB per month

      Where are you getting $30 for "AWS"?

      *Prices exclude data transfer charges, which shouldn't apply to most long-term backup situations

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  4. ;) Blablablah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SWEET. And i'll start working on a rapidshare Right-Away!

  5. What a bunch of douche bags by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, what a bunch of assholes.

    So instead of doing the capitalistic thing and gouging with insanely high prices, the shops instead started rationing drives for a sane price so everyone could get a little bit of the very limited supply.

    That was actually a really good thing to do. Instead of profiteering, they tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone.

    Then a bunch of dicks like this figure that they're more important than everyone else and that they should be able to get more than enyone else.

    Selfish bastards. Nothing but scum.

    After reading this I will not be giving them my money.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by lxs · · Score: 0

      I agree that it's a pretty selfish thing to do, although I would probably have done the same in their place.
      In a way they were lucky. There have been plenty of times and places where getting around rationing would get you shot.

    2. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by mveloso · · Score: 0

      Who are you talking about, BackBlaze or the stores?

      BackBlaze did what they should have done: solve the business problem at hand. Does anyone know anybody that wasn't able to buy a 3TB hard drive at retail due to BackBlaze's purchases?

    3. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know anybody that wasn't able to buy a 3TB hard drive at retail due to BackBlaze's purchases?

      Err... how would you know?

    4. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty much.

      Besides that, anyone that thinks they can run a company with this business model and survive is a business moron, or a scam artist trying to make a quick buck. This is 90's dotcom level idiocy at it's finest. Unlimited storage for $5/mo? Unlimited bandwidth too I guess? Completely 100% unsustainable.

      So I would expect slimy people like this to pull stuff like trying to scam more quantities of hardware than allowed. Getting friends and family to buy stuff? Uh, did you have them on payroll? I'm sure the IRS would like to look at their records.

    5. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BackBlaze did what they should have done: solve the business problem at hand.

      Ah, choice use of the word "business". That must mean that it's OK to suspend all morals as long as it's "business".

      Basically no.

      BlackBlaze did nothing. Do not pretentd otherwise by using the word "business" to hide the acts of individuals.

      The _people_ at balckblaze figured that they they would be selfish and put their needs above the needs of everyone else. That's selfish, douchebaggy behaviour.

      One that Costco, by not gouging with insane prices, wasn't engaing in.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, free market.

    7. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One that Costco, by not gouging with insane prices, wasn't engaing in.

      You're confusing Costco with Mother Teresa. Costco has to consider "gouging" actions carefully because it has to worry about traditional/social media reactions, and their reputation as a low price house.

      Costco didn't "gouge" because it wasn't in their business best interest to do so, not because they are nice guys.

    8. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by donatzsky · · Score: 2

      Besides that, anyone that thinks they can run a company with this business model and survive is a business moron, or a scam artist trying to make a quick buck. This is 90's dotcom level idiocy at it's finest. Unlimited storage for $5/mo? Unlimited bandwidth too I guess? Completely 100% unsustainable.

      Seems like it's you that's the business moron, as they're actually profitable. And until that $5M funding they got this year, they had been growing entirely through that profit. You can find all the details on their blog somewhere.
      Also, they're not the only ones to do this. There's also CrashPlan (and others I assume) that offer essentially the same thing at about the same price.

    9. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously, what a bunch of assholes.

      So instead of doing the capitalistic thing and gouging with insanely high prices, the shops instead started rationing drives for a sane price so everyone could get a little bit of the very limited supply.

      That was actually a really good thing to do. Instead of profiteering, they tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone.

      Then a bunch of dicks like this figure that they're more important than everyone else and that they should be able to get more than enyone else.

      Selfish bastards. Nothing but scum.

      After reading this I will not be giving them my money.

      The hard drive sellers weren't doing this altruistically. They made their call, figuring that rationing drives was the best for their businesses and best fulfilled their duty to their shareholders.

      The cloud storage company also did what they thought best benefited their business and fulfilled their duty to shareholders/backers/etc.

      It does not benefit us as individuals to assign a moral motive to the actions of a company. Whatever they do, it's for a business purpose. If it seems like one company is the good guy, it's just that that's what they think will help them return value to the owners. We must realize that they are all "selfish bastards" by the very nature of the capitalist system and not be fooled into personifying them.

      What I've written in no way implies that you can't spend your money wherever you want -- or withhold it -- based on anything you want to base it on. If you find a business' actions to be detrimental to society or just contrary to your ideals, you can certainly boycott them. In fact, I think you should boycott if you feel as strongly as you appear to. In this way -- if you're not alone -- those actions on the part of the company may turn out not to benefit the shareholders and therefore force them to change.

      You could also pursue a legislative approach, maybe convince your representatives that legal rationing is in the public interest. The US rationed commodities during wartime before, perhaps you can appeal that adequate storage space for all is sufficiently important for legal intervention.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    10. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by AlgUSF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Honestly, I wouldn't think twice about doing the same thing. They are purchasing the drives, not stealing them. For "some reason" costco is buying them in lots where they can distribute them at that price. I guess they were just leveraging Costco and Best Buy's buying power to keep their business afloat.

      --


      I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
    11. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? What happened was capitalism

      They're minimizing cost (buying drives from Costco instead of their usual suppliers)

      They're providing what the market wants (keeping their price at $5/month)

      And these guys are apparently making profit, still growing as a successful start up, so in a way yes, capitalism does trump all.

      There's no reason why the GP/OP being upset about them being "douche bags". This is simply another part of capitalism: the biggest douche bag usually to win. Nice guys finish last.

      Capitalism was never about being "nice". It's about private ownership of capital, and profits. Nowhere does capitalism require people to be "nice"

    12. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by fermion · · Score: 1
      Shortage of materials is really hard on direct to consumer retail. They have stock which they pay warehousing and interest on, so it usually costs more whcih consumers are are not buying at commercial quantities are willing to pay. OTOH, they expect for a retailer to have stock, so consumers get really annoyed and shop elsewhere. While commercials interests do have choice of where to buy product, most consumers are limited to retail outlets, and Costco is one of the few places that allow consumers a large discount. It is necessary for such retail outlets to do what they can to maintain stock.

      This happened a while back in home improvement sector. The housing bubble was growing and had not burst. Everyone was building, and suppliers were having a hard time metting wholesale demand. Builders started going to retail outlets and buying all the supplies they could. Some retail had to limit quantities so that consumers would have selection. The idea was,IIRC, that if selection was not available they would go somewhere else.

      One way for a commercial interest to protect themselves is to lock in supplies. Southwest did this with jet fuel and it gave them a competitive advantage for a number of years. Apple did this with several components and it has give then a competitive advantage. Sometimes firms just do not have the ability or courage to plan ahead, and they blame other people.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    13. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      I would be very suspicious of a company whose business model depends on them getting a bunch of friends and relatives to buy as many hard drives as they can from Costco.

      WTF!!!

      If BackBlaze is a legitimate company that needs a lot of hard drives, why can't they just buy them from the various distributors/wholesalers. Where do you think Costco gets their drives.

    14. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that it's a pretty selfish thing to do, although I would probably have done the same in their place.

      The magic of Adverse Selection, when you discover the Golden Rule has a discount rate...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    15. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they figured out that they need those drives, and they were willing to expend an increased effort to acquire them in an open marketplace. Maybe they thought they were "more important", but they didn't just sit there with a sense of entitlement and wait for somebody to fulfill it, they actually did something about it. I don't have any problem with that.

    16. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      If Costco was a government entity this argument would make sense.

      As it is Costco is a retailer; retailers are at liberty in an open economy to impose whatever conditions on a sale they please, buyers accept these conditions, and free exchange happens.

      Costco's interest is in keeping as many customers as possible coming to their store, by maintaining an inventory at all times. If their entire inventory is bought up by CloudBackupInc on the first day, Costco is definitely hurt by that, because their business model only works by having as many customers as possible as happy as possible.

      Capitalism and modern economic theory trump all.

      Karl Marx couldn't have said it better himself.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    17. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone please +1 the parent on my anonymous behalf. My first impression: why is slashdot even posting about such ass-o-holic behaviour patterns?

    18. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The hard drive sellers weren't doing this altruistically. They made their call, figuring that rationing drives was the best for their businesses and best fulfilled their duty to their shareholders.

      they almost certainly could have got away with upping the prices by much more than they did. They chose strict rationing instead.

      It does not benefit us as individuals to assign a moral motive to the actions of a company. Whatever they do, it's for a business purpose.

      And this is a real problem. They're just Soylent Corporations: made of people. It's the people that act. Pretending otherwise is an attempt to justify imorral action.

      Taking that to its illoigcal conclusion could lead to hypotheticals like

      Well, it's OK that they kidnapped babies, murdered them and sold them for dog food. It was a really cheap source of meat and so the profit margin was immense. Excellent for business.

      We must realize that they are all "selfish bastards" by the very nature of the capitalist system and not be fooled into personifying them.

      No: you have been fooled into believeing that companies act independent of people. They do not and they cannot. Only people can act and people can and do choose to do immoral things for money.

      The fact that they're doing it for money is no justification whatsoever.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was a smart move by Costco, AND by BackBlaze.

      Costco bought the drives at a previously negotiated low price. They would be making profit even if they sold at their price. Costco had a competitive advantage (they could sell their drives at a lower price while still making profit), so they took advantage of it

      The BackBlaze guys saw an opportunity to gain competitive advantage in their field, and they took action.

      Both companies provided things consumers want (Costco: cheaper drives, BackBlaze: $5/month backup service) while making a profit.

      The result shows: both companies are still here today. Costco's stock was higher than it was a year ago, with projected higher revenues.

      What Costco should have done (what is the correct thing to do)

      What Costco should do is for Costco to decide. You know, self determination and a right to their own property, the foundations of all other rights and freedoms?

    20. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      That was actually a really good thing to do. Instead of profiteering, they tried to make the best of a bad situation for everyone.

      Uh, no. It would be a really stupid thing to do.

      Raising prices means that people who don't really need a drive right now wait for prices to drop, so the users who are willing to pay the higher prices to fulfill real needs can still buy theirs. Rationing means that a company which needs drives today in order to grow its business can't buy them because they're being sold below market price to Joe Sixpack who wants a bigger drive to store more downloaded pr0n.

    21. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Theovon · · Score: 1

      You now have a new fan. I wish more people thought like you and considered what they SHOULD do, ethically, in priority of what's merely LEGAL (or not legal as the case may be). If more people thought like you, then we'd have fewer stupid laws restricting everyone's freedoms on the basis of the selfishness of a few. Thank you for existing and having the willingness to point out that just because something's allowed doesn't mean it's right or doesn't have consequences for other people.

    22. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      It's perfectly sustainable. Their customers will use more and more storage as storage prices fall, and coincidentally they'll be able to buy the additional storage to back it up since prices will have fallen for them too.

      Yes they will lose money on some customers. As long as there are enough customers they make money on that's to cover it that doesn't matter. Every "all you can eat buffet" is making the same bet.

    23. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Shortage of materials is really hard on direct to consumer retail. They have stock which they pay warehousing and interest on, so it usually costs more whcih consumers are are not buying at commercial quantities are willing to pay. OTOH, they expect for a retailer to have stock, so consumers get really annoyed and shop elsewhere.

      Not to mention that this was also during the busy holiday season, to hard drives were going to sell no matter what as they got gobbled up as presents. Costco decided it would be better to serve the interests of its customers by rationing the quantity so more harried shoppers could get them than to simply let them go and replace the inventory with other stuff.

      Customer service is an art - it can involve giving up immediate profit for longer term profit, as well as angering the few to please the many. PC stores often limited sales to "1 per customer per day unless buying a PC" so they'd have sufficient stock for their PC buyers (and builders - that one hard drive may allow them to sell a motherboard, CPU, graphics card, case, power supply, etc...).

      It's a problem faced by toy stores every year - insufficient stock of the year's hottest new toy. And Apple has encountered rioting when the rules weren't followed (forcing them to enforce a world wide 2-per-customer-online-reservation system).

      Got an in-demand item that's rapidly running out of stock? You could raise prices, let some scalper do it for you, or try to limit so more people have the opportunity to buy. The former is usually unattractive (especially if the price was announced beforehand) and can be seen as gouging. Scalpers aren't the kind of customers you want - the thought of profits would easily get them to outshove their way in any lineup - waiting in line a week before release is nothing compared to the profit of buying up the entire stock and selling it at grossly inflated prices (in other goods, good ROI). The latter isn't great for customers (there can be very legitimate reasons to buy more than 2).

      Heck, black friday sales - scalpers are easily the ones who can wait all through wednesday night and thursday for buying some hugely discounted item and reselling (though fortunately for everyone, the items on heavy discount are typically stuff that are outdated).

    24. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      It doesn't.

      When there was a temporary disruption of hard drive supply chains, they noticed that external drives could be bought at costco for significantly cheaper than they could get internal drives from distributors/wholesalers. So they did.

      And they get a bunch of free advertising on slahdot out of writing about it too.

    25. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup, should have fucked their customers, employees and shareholders and gone bankrupt.

    26. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not what they should have done.

      They should have tried to behave in an ethical fashion and negotiate purchasing from a supplier instead of causing a massive drain on a controlled source. Just because it's a "business problem" does not make their solution ethical in any way.

      But America celebrates this type of bullshit from businesses so hey, raise a glass in toast to American entrepreneurial ingenuity!

    27. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by ColdSam · · Score: 2

      That is a philosophical argument, not a practical one. Calling them "selfish bastards" is just shorthand for "companies who made business decisions I find to be unfair and/or evil." Then we treat them as such by punishing them in the market (or legal system). Without that feedback mechanism we would devolve into the baby killing/eating scenario posted by another.

    28. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The _people_ at balckblaze figured that they they would be selfish and put their needs above the needs of everyone else. That's selfish, douchebaggy behaviour.

      Welcome to the market.

    29. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many ways to fudge market reports. Trust me, they're doomed. I give them 3 years before they fold or are bought out at bargain prices.

    30. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by neminem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, that -is- how it works, sadly... Great quote from this season of Leverage:
      "I mean, you and I kill a guy, we go to prison... my company kills a guy, we pay a fine."

    31. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I think you've just discovered for yourself the reason why it makes better sense to do the "capitalistic thing", and let the prices rise until demand matches supply. But, you seem to have a mental block that keeps you from reaching that conclusion.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    32. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the kind of world you promote and want to live in? Where everybody competes to be the biggest a-hole so they can die with the most toys at the end?

      Count me out.

    33. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, who cares if thousands of other people were shafted. As long as two companies benefited, then it's all golden! Let's shout it from the rooftops: AS LONG AS MONEY WAS MADE, EVERY ACTION IS A-OKAY!

    34. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Grave · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have no idea how bad the supply disruption was last year. Even the big OEM PC makers were scrambling to do whatever they had to in order to secure hard drives. And if HP/Dell/Lenovo were scrambling, what makes you think someone as small as Backblaze could just secure a deal that didn't triple or quadruple prices compared to what they had been paying?

    35. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It does not benefit us as individuals to assign a moral motive to the actions of a company. Whatever they do, it's for a business purpose. If it seems like one company is the good guy, it's just that that's what they think will help them return value to the owners. We must realize that they are all "selfish bastards" by the very nature of the capitalist system and not be fooled into personifying them.

      This would be true if companies were manned by robots, but they aren't. A company is just a lot of human beings cooperating, so each and every decision of the company is actually made by a human. That, in turn, means that someone has to make the decision between price gouging and rationing, and their personal morals will inevitably play some role in that.

      Furthermore, one should understand that morality is an evolved trait. That is, being moral gives a survival advantage. To be more specific, being a ruthless bastard is a good way of ending up lynched, or at the very least destroying your own market. This is true for companies too: if a seller price gouges, the buyers will not only go elsewhere, but will almost certainly bear a grudge for a long time afterwards.

      So, not only do companies have moral motives - because the people who make them up have them - but it certainly benefits us to assign their actions moral motives and reward or punish them accordingly. After all, rewarding a company for rationing rather than price gouging will increase the chances that it and its competitors will do the same thing the next time too; punishing (for example, by holding a grudge) companies that price gouge will make that a less attractive option, thus decreasing the chance that they'll do that the next time around. Note that this does not rely on companies actually having morality, it's just basic negative/positive reinforcement learning.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    36. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What Costco should have done (what is the correct thing to do)

      What Costco should do is for Costco to decide. You know, self determination and a right to their own property, the foundations of all other rights and freedoms?

      Welcome to the church of ron paul, headed by the infallible pope roman_mir.
       
      While he says directly that he wants ultimate freedom for people and (more importantly) companies, what he actually means - and one will find after reading his writing more carefully - is that he wants to tell people what freedoms they have. roman_mir's fantasy land is the most fascist dictatorship that one could ever experience, the difference though is that instead of being "oppressed by government" the average person is owned by their employer to be bought, sold, and send to slaughter like cattle. With personal liberties sold to the highest bidder, then emperor ron paul exerts power over the corporations and tells them what they need to to in order to retain their power. Making decisions for retailers is not even the start.

    37. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's how it works legally, because the laws are fucked up. Ethically and morally? No.

    38. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you could say "back blaze" ignored the Capitalistic thing to do and gouge *their* customers (by raising prices and/or lowering services)
      you know, make a the best of a bad situation for all of their customers.

    39. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Raising prices means that people who don't really need a drive right now wait for prices to drop, so the users who are willing to pay the higher prices to fulfill real needs can still buy theirs. Rationing means that a company which needs drives today in order to grow its business can't buy them because they're being sold below market price to Joe Sixpack who wants a bigger drive to store more downloaded pr0n.

      Being able to outbid Joe does not mean that you need the hard drive more than him, it just means that you can outbid him. I could almost certainly outbid someone from a famine zone for a piece of bread, but would I need it more? And you likely realize that too, because of your attempt to belittle Joe's needs with your reference to porn. Why should he suffer for the sake of your profits; is he going to get a share of them? No? Well then, maybe this teaches you to keep an adequate supply of needed resources on-site.

      To put it even blunter, you and Joe both want a limited resource, so you get an even slice of it. Make do with it or go tits-up. Just because you have or want to make money doesn't mean you deserve a larger slice.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    40. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You werent going to give any money to them anyways so who gives a fuck?

    41. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by fredprado · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ethics and moral are highly dependent on the eyes of the beholder. What is ethic and moral to you may be highly unethical and highly immoral to me and the other way around.

    42. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by neminem · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. That's why Leverage is so much fun - after hearing him say that, they set up the guy to commit a bunch of crimes, and think he committed several others, including faking that he killed a guy. Cue ironic echo: "if you or I kill someone, we go to prison? Pretty sure you just killed that guy." (He goes to prison.) Of course, they committed a bunch of crimes in the process, but hey, they're the good guys, they can get away with it* (what with it being fiction and all).

      http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroInsurance

    43. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the kind of world you promote and want to live in?

      This is not me "promoting" or "wanting" anything. This is just me calling it as I see it.

      You know what I really "want"? A harem of sexy robot maids. I'd promote them if it was practical. But alas it's not practical. What I want never came into the picture as far as this thread/story is concerned.

      Where everybody competes to be the biggest a-hole so they can die with the most toys at the end?

      I said the douche bag *usually* wins. I never said they always win.

      I also never said everybody will or has to compete. It's your choice to compete or not, I'm just telling you the odds of the choices (choosing to be an "a-hole" ups usually improves your odds)

    44. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by CdBee · · Score: 1

      You deserve some sort of reward for that remark.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    45. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Plenty of companies were founded by someone with the cash and means to quietly pull off some big purchase below the radar for pennies on the dollar to do something that would have been cost-prohibitive for a lumbering large corporation with purchasing department and 3 layers of bureaucracy. Like FedEx.

      The whole thing that made FedEx possible was the semi-secret invention of a hush kit for the Boeing 727 by one of FedEx's founders. It enabled them to quietly buy up an entire fleet of relatively new jets for pennies on the dollar that were being liquidated at fire-sale prices by US airlines in anticipation of new noise restrictions. THEN, after they'd bought all the jets they wanted, they told everyone about the hushkit, and companies like UPS were out of luck because the 727 suddenly became viable for passenger use again for another 10-20 years and ceased to be dirt cheap.

    46. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it's OK that they kidnapped babies, murdered them and sold them for dog food. It was a really cheap source of meat and so the profit margin was immense. Excellent for business.

      Sir, as a former shareholder of Bain capital and currently in pursuit of larger business management opportunities, let me just say that your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    47. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      The same thing happens in Miami when a hotel or restaurant runs out of something, or a supplier falls through, and sends out employees to buy up every carton of vanilla & chocolate ice cream within 3-5 miles. Or 2-liter bottles of Coke (when their postmix beverage machine dies, and they run out to buy bottles of soft drinks to serve in the meantime). It doesn't happen nearly as often now thanks to Sam's Club, but it still happens every now and then. You'll go into Publix (the main grocery store chain here), and they'll have an aisle of something basic that no grocery store should ever be without that they'll just be totally wiped out of for no obvious reason.

    48. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not unlimited storage. It's unlimited backup. There are limits to how fast you can upload, even if it's just your own pipe. There are limits to how fast you can download, even if it's just your own pipe. There are some interface limitations as well, because the purpose is not day-to-day storage and use. They also make money sending you your data fast on external hard drives when you turn out to need it instantly.

    49. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Or, you could look at it from the opposite perspective. Instead of letting people decide how important it was to them to get a new disk drive, the shops artificially capped their availability for everyone. If I'm running a large data store of $IMPORTANT_DATA, then I probably need whatever number of drives it takes, and I really don't care much what it costs. If I'm the neighborhood cat lady who takes billions of pictures of her cats, then I can put that on hold for a while until the shortage goes away. This is what a supply limited price increase does. Things that are less important get put off until later. I'm not the cat lady, but I *did* put off buying drives during the worst of the price increase. Rationing means the cat lady gets to keep taking pictures but people who really need a lot of data space and for whom it's worth real money to get it can't have it.

      I'd absolutely give them my money (if I used such a service, which I don't, so...sorry). If I pay someone to provide a service, I for darn sure want them to find a way to keep the servers humming whatever the market or weather throws at them.

    50. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Costco survives on being a low price leader. If something is so expensive that they cannot sell it at a good price, then they just won't sell it.

    51. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Maybe YOU are the one being selfish? Data doesn't exist if it is not backed up. Keeping drives flowing to Backblaze was WAY more important then you getting a new drive so you can store a new subset of your porn collection.

    52. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Scum?  For wanting to buy an assload of hard drives?  Really?  Don't you think that's a bit strong?

    53. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by geekoid · · Score: 1

      BNy everyone, you mean there customers, not the thousands of people who couldn't buy hard drives.

      Business only cares about it's customers, cause the provide the bottom line. That is why when someone says they would be good in government becasue of their business experience, you should point and laugh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    54. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by geekoid · · Score: 2

      still doesn't change this:
      . That's selfish, douchebaggy behaviour.

      The fact that you would do it only means you are a selfish douchbag.

      no one said it was theft, so don't bring up that strawman.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    55. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they almost certainly could have got away with upping the prices by much more than they did. They chose strict rationing instead.

      Well, economics dictates that if supply goes down then price should increase or you'll have a shortage. In this scenario the price would have been much, much higher than what people think a harddrive should sell for (i.e. price fixation), so they'd either not sell any or experience very bad PR. Given that Costco is a successful company, they obviously calculated that rationing would be more profitable than increasing price. These sorts of decisions aren't made by emotion or socialist idealism, any large company is going to crunch the numbers.

      Collectives of people do not behave like individual people. They are limited by what their employees are willing to do (e.g. not turning babies into dogfood), and suffer some irrationality due to the human factor, but overall they're going to be rational and amoral (if they're successful). When you distil each person's involvement into a job description, you release people from much of their morality. Each person completes their task without violating any major ethical boundaries, sometimes leading to a net effect that's less moral than what any person would do individually. But companies are a system, and more than the sum of their parts.

      If you don't like the fact that successful companies are essentially amoral and mostly rational, then don't buy commercial products. Companies and corporations are an invention, and if enough people eschew them they will cease to exist. Maybe we'll be self-sufficient, or perhaps we'll have an analog that behaves according to human ideals. But our current system manages to allocate resources fairly efficiently, so replacing it will require a very good alternative. Capitalism has outperformed every other system attempted, but anyone is welcome to try to beat it. But using words like "fair", "just", and "should" without the military or economic power to impose your will on everyone else won't accomplish a thing.

    56. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny... that's the same reason I insist that the libertarian ideals espoused by so many here are completely unworkable in the real world - people are assholes.

    57. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most distributors used free-market supply and demand. The supply dropped, demand exceeded supply, the price rose until supply and demand were in equilibrium again. Hard drives are more expensive but you can still buy them. But you probably put more thought into whether you actually need it or if an alternative (tape, DVDs, not storing so much porn, etc) is better.

      Costco had left the price as-is and used rationing to limit the demand. Usually it's government cronies that benefit but in this case it was backblaze gaming the system. And Joe Consumer goes to costco only to find out that it doesn't matter how cheap hard drives are since there aren't any for sale.

    58. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I essentially agree with what you're saying, but would just like to observe that it highlights the limits of "the market" to solve all problems. From a laissez-faire perspective, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing and costco have no right to restrict sale to them.

    59. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by firewrought · · Score: 1

      You and Joe both want a limited resource, so you get an even slice of it.

      BMW's are limited: should they be sold for an artificially low price at rationed quantities?

      It may not be fair that some people have more money than others (that's a whole 'nother discussion), but price is a convenient way to determine how much everyone gets of which resources. How come? Well, it encourages people to weigh their need for a product against their other needs/wants/desires. It encourages people to weigh their need for a product against other people's need (even though there is the "unfair" aspect of wealth disparity to it). It encourages people to find/invent/use alternatives. It also encourages people to start manufacturing a scarce product (which brings down the price, ultimately).

      It's not a perfect system for resource allocation, but for most things it seems to work pretty well (and much better than other systems that have been tried). The counterexample you bring up (outbidding famine victims for bread) is one of the things where free-market economies do make an exception thru various government programs (such as food stamps, but also differing tax rates, welfare programs, subsidies, etc.). But BMW's and hard drives are not subsistence items, and conscientious societies do not need to redistribute wealth to help folks of meager means acquire these things.

      Costco's rationing was probably a customer-experience strategy (they want people to experience the occasional "awesome deal" to reinforce the idea that Costco has the lowest prices and is worth the membership fee), not an attempt at "fairness". They can tell others to "deal with it" because they own the drives and decided this was how they wanted to monetize them, not because they have any particular obligation to make them equally available to all customers.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    60. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You act as if the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, the very same porn might have been kept on Backblaze's servers BECAUSE the users weren't able to get their own drives!

    61. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rationing hard drives was a stupid decision. If they increased the price, someone who could go a little longer without a new hard drive would decide to wait until the prices came down, and someone who needed a bunch of new drives right now would fork over the money. Instead, the one who can wait a little longer buys one now, instead, because they're still cheap - and the one who needs drives right now is screwed.

    62. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for saying this. It's become far too easy these days for people to justify their impulses using an elementary-level (mis)understanding of capitalism.

    63. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously? Morals? They did nothing more that fix the problem they were facing in the most effective way they could. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    64. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being able to outbid Joe does not mean that you need the hard drive more than him, it just means that you can outbid him. I could almost certainly outbid someone from a famine zone for a piece of bread, but would I need it more?

      Do you realize that you do this all the time? When you buy bread, you are outbidding people in famine zone. If the bread company could make more money by shipping the bread to starving people, they would.

    65. Re:What a bunch of douche bags by yevp · · Score: 1

      Yev w/ Backblaze here -> Even though we did not prevent people from purchasing drives (we rarely bought ALL of the drives within any given location, and if so, it was before a shipment was delivered), a lot of our users were able to backup to us for $5/month instead of purchasing a higher price drive do backup to locally, then when prices started going down they were able to purchase the local drive as well.

  6. Skip the blogspam by maztuhblastah · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hear the story direct from Backblaze (bonus: goes into more detail).

    1. Re:Skip the blogspam by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

      I like how they link to the article about how they build up their pods. Really cool info for the novice storage builder trying to put something similar together for their small enterprise. Enough information to get you going, enough redacted so that you actually have to DIY.

      --


      I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
  7. I don't get it by JobyOne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?

    I can't think of many good reasons that they would look at customers coming in and buying assloads of their merchandise and say "NO! Get out of here and don't buy stuff from us ever again!"

    --
    Porquoi?
    1. Re:I don't get it by xlsior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many companies reserve the right to limit quantities. Making one customer happy by selling them every drive in stock means ticking off hundreds of others that wouldn't be able to buy the single drive they need.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?

      I can't think of many good reasons that they would look at customers coming in and buying assloads of their merchandise and say "NO! Get out of here and don't buy stuff from us ever again!"

      A valid question, but one which some logical thought should provide an answer to... I'd suspect Costco prefers to have many content customers (a customer who ends up at an empty shelf every day is going to go elsewhere, potentially even for other stuff) than one deliriously happy customer. The profit margins on those things are going to be minor anyway, so its not Costco were raking in the profits by selling all their harddrive stock. Presumably, this added profit did not offset all the other customers being unhappy with Costco that they couldnt buy they harddrives they advertise.

    3. Re:I don't get it by localman57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?

      There's a difference between selling at a loss, and selling below market value. For instance, if Costco signs a contract for delivery of a million drives in Feburary, the factory floods in March, and Costco gets delivery in April, their drives are suddenly worth substantially more. They can either sell them at the previously intended prices, or they can raise prices to market value. In the first case they still sell them for more than they paid, but less than market value. In the second case, they take the customer for all they're worth, and make much more profit. Rationing is the only way the first one can work, otherwise someone will come in and buy all your drives, then resell them at market value.

    4. Re:I don't get it by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      It was not that the drives they had were more expensive for them to purchase it was just that they could not get very many of them.
      So they limited how much each person could buy instead of profiteering and raising prices so only the rich could afford them.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe they just wanted to prevent racketeering: a company buying up a temporarily rare commodity (making it even rarer) and reselling at a huge mark-up. Maybe Costco thought this unregulated free market needed some self regulation to help it remain healthy.

    6. Re:I don't get it by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Costco likely purchsed the drives when they were available in bulk at low prices prior to the shortage. The clowd providers were buying drives as needed. Keeping inventory low.

    7. Re:I don't get it by PPH · · Score: 1

      'd suspect Costco prefers to have many content customers (a customer who ends up at an empty shelf every day is going to go elsewhere, potentially even for other stuff) than one deliriously happy customer.

      Costco is notorious for getting a container load of something and putting it up on the shelves until it runs out. And then never carrying it again.

      Supposedly, they cater to small businesses who need a consistent supply of certain items. Think of a restaurant putting something on their menu based on ingredient availability. Unless its their Kirkland brand whatever, their selection is inconsistent.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:I don't get it by BetterSense · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless the drives are copyrighted!

    9. Re:I don't get it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?

      There was a delay in the pipeline. Like, all factories shut down due to natural disaster (Tsunami). Therefore, Costco (due to buying in bulk) and a few others had a supply that had to be stretched. Instead of raising rates to match the new supply with demand, they imposed caps on how many each customer could buy. Many other companies did so as well (Newegg for instance).

      Now that the supply line has been fixed, you can go buy a shitton of drives at Costco, as I believe this company was doing before.

      Basically, this is like complaining that the local grocery store won't let you buy all the water you want after a hurricane (esp. if you plan on reselling it.) when they are keeping prices low as a humanitarian gesture.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:I don't get it by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There was a flood in thailand, this meant supplies of hard drives were massively reduced. Stockists of hard drives were left with three choices.

      1: Crank up the price until demand came down to meet supply
      2: Put restrictions in place to stop one customer buying too many, possiblly in combination with smaller price increases.
      3: Do nothing

      Whichever choice is taken some customers will be pissed off. Choice 1 is likely to be the most profitable if only hard drive profits are looked at. However if people consider hard drive prices unreasonable they may decide to hold off on their computer build/upgrade and hence hold off on buying other parts too. They may also feel bad about the supplier in general causing them to take unrelated buisness elsewhere.

      Choice 3 means they won't have any hard drives to sell pretty quickly which will piss off customers who really needed a hard drive right now and will also make it very difficult to sell any other computer components.

      So that left choice 2.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    11. Re:I don't get it by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the case was with Cosco in this instance, but sometimes it's better business to please many customers with small orders than to please 1 customer with a huge order. Even if it comes out to selling more drives in the short term, if it means developing a reputation from your regular customers for not having what they need, it may not be good for business to sell out.

    12. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, they cater to small businesses who need a consistent supply of certain items. Think of a restaurant putting something on their menu based on ingredient availability. Unless its their Kirkland brand whatever, their selection is inconsistent.

      FWIW, Many small business restaurants put together menus based on ingredient availability... Just not ones that tend to buy stuff from Costco... Better restaurants that cook fresher food tend to at least base their menus on seasonal availability if nothing else...

    13. Re:I don't get it by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's not why you ration. You ration because you want to be "The Place That Has Hard Drives" and hopefully have your customers buy a pallete of diapers or a bigscreen TV while they're at the store. A customer who gets nothing is worse than a customer who only gets a reasonable amount.

    14. Re:I don't get it by rmelton · · Score: 1

      ... For instance, if Costco signs a contract for delivery of a million drives in Feburary, the factory floods in March, and Costco gets delivery in April, their drives are suddenly worth substantially more. They can either sell them at the previously intended prices, or they can raise prices to market value....

      What about the flip where they sign a contract and the market price falls. They are now holding a loss. Who is going to cover that? I assume that the future contracts upside/downside cancel out. If they don't take the profit from the good market swings they can't cover the loss from the bad market swings.

      Just sayin...

    15. Re:I don't get it by timeOday · · Score: 1

      And what you said is more true of Costco than other retailers because it is a membership store - their entire business model is based on repeat customers. If you're selling gasoline to tourists near Disneyland, you gouge while the gouging is good; you'll never see them again anyways. In contrast, I doubt 1% of Costco customers on a given day are first-timers, so they are banking on reputation. This also explains their more liberal return policies, and extended warranties on electronics.

    16. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Was Costco selling these drives at a loss or something, just to get people in the door?

      I can't think of many good reasons that they would look at customers coming in and buying assloads of their merchandise and say "NO! Get out of here and don't buy stuff from us ever again!"

      In Massachusetts, that's illegal. If you sell something, anyone can come in and buy it, no limits. This is to work against predetory pricing. If store A sells at a loss, store B can buy all their stock.

    17. Re:I don't get it by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I can't think of many good reasons that they would look at customers coming in and buying assloads of their merchandise and say "NO! Get out of here and don't buy stuff from us ever again!"

      Costco depends on membership card fees. If one person, only paying for one membership, comes in and clears out the the store, they've lost TONS of money. It's much better for them to keep the largest number of people happy, rather than just selling all their inventory.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many companies reserve the right to limit quantities.

      They also do that to boost sales, by stoking the customers' fears of missing a bargain. Customers are more likely to buy more than they intended if they believe the opportunity is limited or fleeting.

    19. Re:I don't get it by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I think it might have had more to do with Costco's warranty policy, which is basically "two years, no questions asked" for failed electronics. Might be they figured a single extraordinary-size purchase is a risk for a large warranty payout.

      I can't think of another reason why they'd buy 'em from Costco, either, since Costco is very seldom even close to a low-price leader for hard drives. You can do better straight from the manufacturer.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  8. How smurfy of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They smurfed those hard drives, but obviously they didn't distribute the workload over a large enough number of individuals.

    Maybe they could have hired meth addicts, but the annual cost of the costco membership would act as a pretty significant rate-limiter.

  9. They're a startup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're a start up. They're the little guys. So obviously there must be evil government regulations and taxes in place that work for big corporations but against them, had they gone that route. ...actually no, from TFA:

    "Literally overnight," Budman told me, "... all the places we would go to get drives said, 'Sorry, we don't have any drives.'" ...However, when months passed and the situation only got worse â" some suppliers were offering 3TB drives that used to cost $129 for around $600...

    I think they already tried, but that became unfeasible

  10. 3.96$ a month... by geschild · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... is pretty cheap (5$ is for a family account). But as BB itself says, you can only upload 2 to 4 GB per day.

    They should be making a mint on that service! They use home-brew storage pods and are very open about it, too!
    http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/

    Anyway, be careful to read all the gotchas:
    http://www.backblaze.com/remote-backup-everything.html (hint: 'everything' for a certain definition of everything. No virtual machines, ISO's and NAS storage by default.)
    http://www.backblaze.com/internet-backup.html (hint: not all OSes are treated equally.)

    (Full disclosure: I work for a storage manufacturer that sells de-duping storage so I think I understand their cost model a bit better than most.)

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
    1. Re:3.96$ a month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the push of their latest client, (mainly it does chunking of files rather than the entire file in one go) they lifted the restriction on file types and locations. It will now backup anything and everything it detects as local storage.

    2. Re:3.96$ a month... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      In the latest client you can delete the exclusions for ISO files or anything else for that matter. There is also no file size limit anymore.

  11. House burns down? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A backup in your basement does nothing for you if your house burns down/gets flooded/has a catastrophic power surge/whatever.

    Where else can you backup offsite?

    --PM

    1. Re:House burns down? by philipmather · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would say at your parent's house but this being slashdot that's probably not offsite.

      --
      Regards, Phil
    2. Re:House burns down? by Albanach · · Score: 1

      How about a neighbor. You could host a drive for them, they host one for you. Cheap wifi network connecting the drives to your networks. Encrypt everything you backup. You each have an offsite backup with reasonably fast connections.

    3. Re:House burns down? by xaxa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would say at your parent's house

      That's exactly what I've done. I set up some scripts to rsync data from my computer to a server in my mum's garage, and also the reverse.

      That way, we both have important data (mostly photos) backed up off-site in different cities, and the photos are available to browse through a web interface.

      but this being slashdot that's probably not offsite.

      A friend went with an encrypted backup program, and set up more-or-less the same thing with another friend.

    4. Re:House burns down? by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      yeah that is not a great plan to avoid having your data lost due to a natural disaster. flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, or hurricanes usually will not be localized to just your house in the neighborhood. off-site needs to be miles away at minimum, and ideally in another region.

    5. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a such a thing as a safety deposit box at the bank if you don't mind going there to swap a couple of HDD. While it is not up to date, it is better than nothing.

    6. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is why you back-up to external drives, and keep a monthly (or weekly) drive in your desk at the office.

    7. Re:House burns down? by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

      There are no Guarantees with online backup just ask the millions who lost everything to companys going out of business or have the FBI confiscate there data. Me if i loose everything in a fire or whatever i move on. There's a great chance someone in the family will have a dupe of images and things bought online can be re downloaded too.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    8. Re:House burns down? by JazzLad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3 words:

      Safe Deposit Box.

      I have 3 drives (that are archive only, not OS), 2 in my PC and 1 in my bank. Every couple weeks or so I take one out of my PC & swap it at the bank & update the bank's drive to mirror the one still in my PC. Cost is ~30/yr for the box except that I already had it for documents anyway (so no adtl cost to me).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    9. Re:House burns down? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So you get a fire/flood resistant NAS or drive:

      http://www.hddfiresafe.com/

      BTW, the Backblaze data center is pretty close to the San Andreas fault..

    10. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do you reimbuse your mother for electricity costs? Did you even offer? Tsk. Tsk.

    11. Re:House burns down? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      RSYNC is powerful but my question is this. How do you monitor it?

    12. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communal and inter communal backup mesh, with a redundancy in the other side of the country, or the world. Friendship towns backup each other from the local authorities to the forest dwellers. That's one social startup, or an OSS project opportunity right there.

    13. Re:House burns down? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      How much does a safety deposit box cost per month? And how much gas money will you need to swap out your hard disks on a daily basis? Oh, you are going to be good about swapping them weekly? Monthly isn't too bad once in a while? You forgot to do it this month but you are going to tomorrow?

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:House burns down? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, much more sense then backing it up offsite every week. Hell, it's automated, do in incremental every day.
      sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:House burns down? by vlm · · Score: 1

      swap out your hard disks on a daily basis?

      Daily basis? If the point is to not lose your wedding photos, that seems a bit extreme.

      Am I willing to lose my digital life's work? Nah not really. How bout the delta from the previous month? Not so bad.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:House burns down? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I wrote quite a long script -- it's almost 400 lines of Zsh. There may well be better solutions now, but I started this in 2003 or so. I should probably put what I've got on Github or somewhere.

      I'm not paranoid about backing up every day -- the backups are done (by cron) whenever I turn my desktop PC on, which is usually every 1-3 days, but obviously less if I'm away. The script ends by sending an email to me. If it's successful, GMail labels the message and it skips the inbox. If the backup isn't successful, GMail puts the notification in my inbox.

      There's also a third computer, in my mum's house (different building to the garage). This is normally switched off, but the BIOS is set to boot it up once a month. It provides an off-line backup.

      All the backups maintain some history, using rsync's hard links feature. The most recent five backups are kept (usually the last five days), then one backup a week (for the last year). Other than photographs, I don't have much personal data, so there isn't much churn.

    17. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 words:

        Safe Deposit Box.

      I have 3 drives (that are archive only, not OS), 2 in my PC and 1 in my bank. Every couple weeks or so I take one out of my PC & swap it at the bank & update the bank's drive to mirror the one still in my PC. Cost is ~30/yr for the box except that I already had it for documents anyway (so no adtl cost to me).

      Make sure you get a big box, not a little one. I keep my collection of rare-earth magnets in my safe deposit boxes.

      What bank do I use? One of the big ones.

    18. Re:House burns down? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

      Crashplan

    19. Re:House burns down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>A backup in your basement does nothing for you if your house burns down/gets flooded/has a catastrophic power surge/whatever.

      Your carcass is generally at the same location or source of the data. So who exactly will be recovering your data?

  12. Internet Archive by dr_leviathan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Several months ago I met someone from the Internet Archive (archive.org) who told a similar story. The weren't expanding their storage at the same pace as Backblaze, but they were also resorting to shucking external drives to build their rack mounted servers.

    --
    Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
  13. All on consumer grade drives..... by Lumpy · · Score: 0

    If you thin your data is safe with these people..... Well you deserve to get what you pay for.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think "enterprise" grade drives are any better. Does parting with more of your dollars make you feel better?

    2. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah. I'll bet they're not even using oxygen-free SATA cables either.

      Who cares what they store it on? What's important is it adequately checked for consistency, and what are the backups like. Everything else is detail.

      Guess what. Google bought off-the-shelf computer gear for years and some datacentres run things without "datacentre grade" cooling. They don't suffer because a) they do it properly (i.e. not RELY on those drives to never fail) and b) nobody notices because the service is still more than good enough.

      "Enterprise"-grade drives are just warrantied for longer. It doesn't mean they won't die just as quickly. Like "RAID"-grade drives - same drive as every other one on the production lines.

      It's like saying you can't use Intel Mobile chips in a datacenter. It might not be your first choice, but provided they fulfil all their service obligations (which includes response times, failover, etc.) then who notices and who cares?

      Every single server I've ever installed used "consumer grade" drives. Every single desktop I've ever installed used "consumer grade" drives. Failures are actually FAR BELOW any stated MTBF and, who cares, because it takes seconds to replace and DOES NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL SERVICE for the user. And no-one I've worked for has ever lost data because of a drive failure. Ever. Even when servers have all but caught fire.

    3. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 1

      Any even marginally architected system can deal with disk failures, and indeed *must*. The difference between using masses of consumer disks and a few enterprise disks is that while a failed consumer disk in a massive pool might cause a slight slowdown spread across all of your users, a failed enterprise disk in a business-critical system can ruin your whole day even if you *don't* lose any data. Remember how Google just lets hardware die and replaces it on repeated passes through the datacenter? Same thing.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    4. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If your using hardware raid it gets important mostly the time limited error recovery bit to keep raid cards from failing out the drive while it's trying to recover a block, Backblaze is not use hardware raid so it's a non issue. They are a scale wide not deep strategy. When one persons restore can be spread around a dozen servers your limiting factor quickly becomes there internet speed.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by prestonmichaelh · · Score: 2

      You should read on how they build their systems. One of the ways they keep costs so low is using consumer grade hardware with the idea that it will fail. In general, consumer grade hard drives have about the same failure rate as "enterprise grade", they just usually have lower transfer rates. When your clients are syncing over 768k DSL uploads or even 3-5 Mbps cable upload speeds, hard drive speed is not going to be your bottleneck.

      They actually have a guy whose job it is to just go around a day or two a week through their data center and replace the dead drives. Due to the redundancy they built into their systems, a drive failure isn't a big deal or really unexpected.

    6. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intreasting, I buy consumer grade drives with a 5 year warrenty, the enterprise drives come with a 1 year warrenty. Guess the manufacturers expect the enterprise ones to fail more frequently (based on the small numbers 96 drives, no failures I've dealt with 10k RPM SATA [WD consumer] drives are *more* reliable than the equivalent 10k RPM SAS enterprise drives as supplied by SUN (32 drives, 5 failures).

    7. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think I had a time limited error recovery bit trying to read that post.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Apparently you believe:

      a) they store only one copy of your data
      b) that "enterprise" hard drives are some how better quality

      Here's a hint: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+hard+drive+report

    9. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooaa there, Bubbalouie. I'll do the thinnin' around here!

    10. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      The difference between an internet search engine and a cloud backup solution is that "good enough" for a search engine is that the results are satisfying enough that I keep returning to that particular search engine. "Good enough" for a backup solution means I can read my data back. Very different situations. Write-only storage isn't terribly useful.

      Anyone who thinks enterprise grade drives and consumer grade drives are the same either hasn't ever seen an enterprise drive or they haven't actually compared. Here's a little experiment for you. Get an actual enterprise grade drive and an actual consumer grade drive and place them on a scale. The fact that they don't weigh the same should tell you something about how different they really are. Consumer grade drives user higher density platters, they use different head positioning mechanisms, and they have different motors.

      FWIW exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 7200 RPM drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have 1+ TB drives. Exactly zero of the servers in the data center I work in have SATA drives. In our SAN attached arrays we have over three thousand five hundred drives, zero of them are SATA. Zero of them are 7200 RPM. If we were a small business things might be different, but to us our data matters and it being available matters.

    11. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      It's safe to assume that your snarky lmgfty link goes with your point b? Have you actually read that report, in particular the first paragraph of section 2.2 where they state:

      The disks are a combination of serial and parallel ATA consumer-grade hard disk drives, ranging in speed from 5400 to 7200 rpm, and in size from 80 to 400 GB.

      How exactly is a study of consumer-grade disk drives supposed to tell us anything about enterprise drives?

    12. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by slew · · Score: 1

      Google did a study on consumer grade drives a while ago...

      http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/archive/disk_failures.pdf

      And here's how NetApp (one of those "enterprise" guys responded)...

      http://storagemojo.com/2007/02/26/netapp-weighs-in-on-disks/

      This tidbit known mostly to industry insiders is largely true, especially when comparing comparable drive sizes. But how storage arrays handle the respective drive type failures is what continues to perpetuate the customer perception that more expensive drives should be more reliable. One of the storage industry’s dirty secrets is that most enterprise and consumer drives are made up of largely the same components. However, their external interfaces (FC, SCSI, SAS or SATA) and most importantly their respective firmware design priorities / resulting goals play a huge role in determining enterprise vs. consumer drive behavior in the real world.

    13. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's assume for the sake of argument that your SAS drives have double the MTBF of a 7200 RPM SATA drive. For simplicity of the arithmetic, let's call the SATA MTBF 1 year, and your SAS enterprise drives' MTBF 2 years. Presumably you don't rely only on this, you also put them in some form of RAID so that you can survive perhaps two drives in any 8 failing, or however you configure your RAID. So you're breaking out the tapes when three drives in a block fail.

      The person on SATA pays around a quarter what you do per GB. That means they can effectively RAID 1 your setup and gain an extra drive failure. Their 7200 are slower than your drives but they also have twice as many spindles now so they have an effective speed of over 14,000 RPM.

      So, which is more likely, three of eight SAS drives failing before your replacements arrive from HP, or four of eight SATA drives failing before replacements arrive from COSTCO?

      Reliability can either be bought through expensive components or through redundancy, and redundancy will beat quality components on pretty much everything except space and power.

    14. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      I do apologize. There were two other links as well:

      http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
      http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/

      A quick search on "consumer" and "enterprise" on those two pages will help. You'd probably like the bit where they discovered that enterprise grade western digital drives fail at a higher rate.

    15. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      by the way, my original point was that consumer drives perform as just as well. Those are the drives in my nice X4540 box too.

    16. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the clue is pretty much in the (now apparently forgotten) original meaning of RAID.

      "Inexpensive" disks.

    17. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Bronster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I remember well when Berkeley Uni on their shiny expensive-disks SAN had their whole email system go up in flames for over a week due to a single failed drive and the extra IO hit to recover. When the same thing happens to me with the cheap SATA crap we use, I just move all the masters from that machine to other machines and let it rebuild. No loss of service, minimal impact spread over a large pile of users.

      Apart from a really bad batch of 300Gb 10kRPM drives a couple of years ago, it's been very easy. Roughly one failure per month. Systems designed for rapid failover. No worries.

      Even in the horrible case where I lost a whole machine and had to rebuild from scratch, only about 5% of users were affected by noticable slowdowns because they were on the source drives for the re-replication, and had to compete for IO. I could have reduced the impact on them by slowing the replication, but that's longer without full redundancy.

      (this is all RAID1 as well)

      There's more than one way to do it. I care about our users' data plenty, which is why it's on 6 separate live spindles PLUS backup.

      http://whatwouldazen.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-three-types-of-data/

    18. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Score+Whore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with, but it's not me. My point was that there is a difference between consumer and enterprise grade drives. Not that enterprise grade is more reliable than consumer grade. The main differences I listed have to do with performance and the ability to get one's data off the drive.

      Here are some basic facts about storage for you. A 5400 RPM drive has an average rotational latency of 5.5 milliseconds. A 7200 RPM drive averages 4 milliseconds. A 10K RPM drive, 3 milliseconds. And 15K RPM averages 2 milliseconds. This is just basic math -- any particular block on the drive will sometimes be right before the head and sometimes right behind the head. On average the platter has to spin halfway around to bring that block to the head.

      But that's only a portion of the performance of a drive. The other part is how long it takes the head to move from track to track. This is much more design dependent. But in general enterprise drives are expected to have a seek time in the 3-5 millisecond range and consumer drives run 5 and up, typically 5-10 milliseconds.

      Add these up and a typical 15K RPM drive will have about 6 ms latency and a typical 7200 RPM drive will have 11 ms latency. Which means that a 15K RPM drive can do approximately 165 random IO operations at it's typical latency (normally measured in terms of 4k, 8k or 16k IOs.) A 7200 RPM drive can do approximately 90 random IOPS. This is a big deal when dealing with multi-user server applications.

      Additionally, all SAS and FC drives are dual ported and SAS and FC fabrics are multi-initiator. Which allows them to be deployed in fully redundant and fully active configurations (two paths between server and array, two controllers in the array, two mirrored caches and two paths from each controller to each disk.) A SATA drive has one port. There are port multiplexers that can be inserted between the drive and the chassis, but because the drive itself is natively single ported, only one of the multiplexed ports can be active at a time and thus are limited to having fail-over between the controllers rather than active-active controllers.

      As far as RAID performance goes... Two mirrored 7200 RPM drives do not provide the equivalent of a 14.4K RPM drive. Minimum latency is limited by the speed of a single drive regardless of RAID of any type. Here's what a two drive RAID1 gets you: one redundant copy of your data. Twice as many read operations at the same latency as a single disk. And the write performance of a single disk. Because you can do twice as many read operations, you get double the read bandwidth. Yes you can add more drives to your mirror, but there comes a point where the rest of your storage subsystem becomes less redundant that your drives. RAID5 (or RAID6, or RAIDZ, or RAIDZ2, etc.) gets you redundancy to the level of however many disks worth of parity your system implements. For a standard RAID5 that is a single disk failure, for RAID6 it's two disks, etc. Read performance increases as a multiple of the number of drives in your raid group. Write performance is a read and a write of your data block plus a read and write for each parity block. For RAID5 that means that each write will do four IO operations into the raid group. So an eight drive raid group should get double the write performance of a single drive. Of course any array that one would use in an enterprise environment will have at least two battery backed up caches, which makes any write penalties moot as all writes are cached.

      As far as reliability goes, that's an interesting question. The fact is hard drives die. However the premium I pay buying hard drives from my storage or server vendor includes 4 hour replacement SLAs in western countries and in less developed areas it's typically 24 hours. I don't know what Costco's policy is, but I'm sure it doesn't involve bringing the HDD to me today and I'd be surprised if I could show up three years later and have them replace my HDD with a matching device. Additionally consumer grade drive

    19. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Good story. But has nothing to do with whether enterprise drives are the same as consumer drives.

      However if you want to compare penis sizes, how about when a drive fails in either our Hitachi VSP or AMS arrays, they automatically rebuild using a hot spare, phone home and order a replacement, and there is no impact on performance and none of the users are even aware it happened. All this while carrying 40,000+ IOPS, over 99% of which are serviced at 10 ms latency.

      I am baffled as to why people think their one -- often special purpose -- use case is definitive for all storage situations the world over.

    20. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by joshio · · Score: 1

      An Enterprise RAID array isn't strictly about redundancy (although it sounds like that was the point Score Whore was trying to make). It is also about performance. Let's say you are trying to make a 100TB SAN. You can do this using the strategy you outlined, by using 3TB drives and doing a RAID 1 on them. So, 100TB / 3TB = 34 drives * 2 (RAID 1) = 68 drives. Each spindle on a 7200 RPM SATA drive only delivers about 75 IOPs, so that gives you 5100 IOPs Total.

      In an Enterprise environment, you are probably going to need a lot more than 5100 IOPs in a 100TB SAN. So, let's say you decide to use 300GB 15k SAS drives. Those give you about 175 IOPs per spindle. If you use the RAID 6 strategy you outlined, which I am fond of myself, (6+2, or 2 failures out of every 8 drives), that would put you around 448 disks total (448 / 8 disks per RAID set = 56 sets * 6 usable drives per set = 336 usable drives * 300 GB = 100800GB). With the 448 spindles, 448 * 175 IOPs = 78400 IOPs. That's a little bit closer to what we're looking for. Throw in a few spares at 30:1 (15 drives), to put you to 463 drives.

      How many SATA drives would it take to match the IOPs in a RAID 1 configuration? 78400 IOPs / 75 IOPs per drive = 1046 drives. Spares at around 30:1 means another 35 disks, for 1081 total.

      Next we factor power into that. With a Google search, I averaged typical power consumption from 8 7200 RPM 3TB SATA drives (8.6875 W), giving you 9391.188 W for the SATA array. For the 15k 300GB 3.5" SAS drive, it seemed like the most common Google results came back to the Samsung Cheetah, and the data sheet for that one says 7.92 W typical, or 3666.96 W for the SAS array, which means that the SATA array would require 2.5 times the power. More drives, more power means more cooling (and obviously more space as well).

      It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. In an enterprise environment, space, cooling and power are often big concerns. Depending on your environmental limitations and other factors (i.e. regulations, compliance, etc), money isn't always the primary motivator - that all depends on the nature of the business. If you work in a business that is heavily regulated, then you will likely not bet your job on a bunch of SATA disks to store your 5 (or 7, 10, or more) years worth of data that must be searchable, discoverable, highly available, etc (ok, you might bet your job on it, but I'm not going to bet mine on it). Most likely, you are going to tell your company that to protect that data (and potentially your job, depending on your responsibilities), they need to shell out for a costly SAN. Perhaps even 2 geo-redundant SANs that are replicated. Then, you might put a bunch of SATA disks behind that with a backup agent for another layer of protection. Then you might also dump that data to tapes. Which you then ship offsite. Because if things get ugly, you don't want to be the decision maker or recommender who proposed the SATA disks because they were the good enough solution.

      Or maybe you do want to be in that position. But I sure don't want to be there. I'm a big fan of well-developed DR/BC plans and highly available infrastructure. When things are working, there are many solutions that can work well. However, when things stop working, you have to have a well-formed plan in mind to recover from the failure. And "we'll just get replacement drives from COSTCO" isn't a particularly well-formed plan (in fact, where I work, even suggesting that would probably result in termination). If you have to wait more than 4 hours to get replacement drives from HP, you should probably look at another storage vendor. Besides, your array should have enough hot spares for the array to rebuild itself even in the event that you don't get those drives in a timely manner.

      TL;DR Higher performance disks may be required over cheap disks. It's not always just about redundancy. The same shoe doesn't fit everyone!

    21. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Backup hardware does not need "RAID" or "IOPS" or "Dual Ported", what it needs is redundancy. Real redundancy of the sort you put behind a fancy disk array because they're fucking unreliable.

      Duplicate your data, and make sure that each dupe is placed on a separate switch, PDU, and rack or even better, in another datacenter.

    22. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (And don't link to the Google report on their drive experiences, unless you are Google you have no idea what the workload was and unless you are in the same line of business as Google their solutions have little transfer value.)
      I don't work for Google, but I can easily say their workload differs a lot from typical enterprise. Searches generate less reading than even nearly their full combined search database is. Videos mainly require read bandwidth. Both of these resemble behavior how consumers use hard drives (with little reservation on videos). Neither of these require high IOPS like typical enterprise workload.

    23. Re:All on consumer grade drives..... by yevp · · Score: 1

      Yev from Backblaze here -> since we've always used consumer level gear and actually designed our storage pods around them, we factored higher failure rates and inconsistencies in to the equations. We know that drives fail (this is why we started an online backup company), and we designed around it so that even if we lose drives or entire arrays, it isn't fatal to the storage. You can read the philosophy here (http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/).

  14. Makes no sense by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    The whole concept of online file storage makes no sense. Especially for consumes and especially in the U.S. where speeds are slow and costs are high. Getting your data into the "cloud" is extremely slow due to the fact that all ISPs severely restrict upload speeds. Then, once you finally get it all uploaded, getting it back will be difficult, even if you are fortunate enough to live in an area with decent speed, because you are probably one of the many millions of people whose only choice for broadband internet is the local cable monopoly, which means you probably have a monthly bandwidth cap, so good luck downloading all that data that will use up 2 or 3 months of your allowed quota.

    Or you could just buy a couple of 2 or 3 TB drives and be done with it.

    1. Re:Makes no sense by prestonmichaelh · · Score: 2

      It actually makes good sense as part of a complete backup system.

      What happens to your data when your office/house/whatever with the 2 or 3 TB drives burns down with them in it, or someone breaks in and steals your desktop and the USB drive you left sitting on top of it?

      Depending on the circumstances, I usually recommend RAID of some kind if possible, a USB/External Hard Drive on-site, and then some kind of off-site backup.

      If your internal drive dies, if you had RAID, you just replace the dead drive. If no RAID, then you restore from your External backup. If you had a fire/theft or other major loss, you restore from web/off-site. In the case of BackBlaze, they offer 3 restoration options, included zip download of files, or FedEx thumb drive or external drive for additional cost.

    2. Re:Makes no sense by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The whole concept of online file storage makes no sense.

      Maybe for you. Thankfully for them it makes sense for many.

      Especially for consumes and especially in the U.S. where speeds are slow and costs are high.

      Their service is targeted specifically for consumers and in the US. Again, maybe for you your speeds are slow and costs are high. It's all relative. I don't mind paying < $60/month for a uncapped 30mbit symmetrical connection.

      Getting your data into the "cloud" is extremely slow due to the fact that all ISPs severely restrict upload speeds.

      I'd be surprised if the average consumer had 60GB worth of files that needed backed up. Users with TB of data that needs backed up are small compared to the total number of potential customers out there.

      60GB at 1mbit is under 6 days. Long time, yes. But you set it up to start backing up and forget about it. It'll just run in the background and eventually it's backed up. After that, incremental backups are much quicker.

      Then, once you finally get it all uploaded, getting it back will be difficult, even if you are fortunate enough to live in an area with decent speed, because you are probably one of the many millions of people whose only choice for broadband internet is the local cable monopoly, which means you probably have a monthly bandwidth cap, so good luck downloading all that data that will use up 2 or 3 months of your allowed quota.

      I'll guarantee you that getting the data back will be faster then not having any data at all and having to recreate it. Or redownload it. Or asking your kids|grandkids|family to recreate memories that were lost.

    3. Re:Makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My backup/storage strategy:

      • Basic RAID setup on the core storage system. The core system runs ZFS.
      • Two external drives for immediate backup. These drives are never both at the same location as the server; I store them at work, and bring one home to do (incremental) backup, and then bring it to work and bring the other one back. These run UFS.
      • Remote backup as a failsafe, selecting a subset of files. This run with alternative backup software.

      This protect against the following problems:


      •    
      • RAID setup protects against disruption if a single disk dies, and gives increased protection for files when stored to the system.
           
      • External drives backup gives a complete incremental backup, and the use of UFS instead of ZFS snapshot files protects against bugs in ZFS leading to corrupt primary file systems + backups.
           
      • Dual backup disks that are never connected to the same system protects against power spikes or hacker attacks wiping out all stored copies at once.
           
      • Remote backup protect against earthquakes or riots or police action destroying all copies.

      What do I want to protect this much? Pictures of my kids growing up. They're not possible to replace, and protecting this is fairly cheap. The entire setup has probably cost me significantly less than $1000, and the computer for it doubles as a HTPC. If I assume I'd have at least one disk for storage and one for backup anyway, the extra reliability is less than $250. And $5 or so a month in remote backup.

      Compared to how much I spend on a camera to be able to take good pictures, this is not an expense to care about. It's less than the cost of a single lens.

  15. Free Advertising! by trevc · · Score: 1

    Come try it out!

  16. They Open Sourced their Hardware by Marble68 · · Score: 1

    If you're interested, they open sourced their hardware a few years ago.

    http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
    1. Re:They Open Sourced their Hardware by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 0

      So?

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  17. Ob python by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    photography eh?

    Nudge, Nudge, wink wink
    Say no more

  18. Banned at Best Buy by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    More of a feature than a bug.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  19. Compression anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compression anyone?

    1. Re:Compression anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! Compression?! Why didn't I think of that.

      I just compressed the data.. and had just 2 bits left: a 1 and 0. I wrote them on a piece of paper. We don't even need hard drives anymore!

      You're a genius.

      Sincerely,
      Backblaze CEO

  20. Sensationalist headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No where did it mention a "ban from Costco". Not only that, I suspect the term "ban" is a bit harsh to use. These guys were hoarding a consumer product during a "drought". In order for the reseller/retailer to be fair to its customers they imposed limits, so everyone could buy the product. These guys were caught trying to take more than their fair share and were stopped. I see nothing wrong with Costco's behavior, nor do I believe these people were banned from Costco. Unless they made a huge stink and were being jerks.

  21. Costco doesn't make money on product by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Costco has a corporate policy that limits revenue from sales to 10% above their cost. This 10% covers their overhead costs (buildings,employees, distribution, etc). 100% of Costco's profit comes from their membership fees. Depending on the amount of fuel sold per quarter they may turn a very small profit on this 10% or they might not.

    Costco has NO profit incentive to sell one customer more of a product if that means pissing off other customers. Their profits come almost exclusively from membership fees, hence the drive to get everyone signed up for executive memberships.

    1. Re:Costco doesn't make money on product by tonywong · · Score: 2

      Got this from MSNBC:

      Costco works to keep prices low by buying in huge quantity and never marking up any product more than 15 percent, less than the typical 25 percent at a supermarket or 50 percent at a department store. Costco makes up for those low margins by charging a $55 annual membership fee of its 64 million members. With more than 90 percent of its members renewing each year, the fee is evidently not a significant deterrent.

  22. Their architecture is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and finding out that I haven't been able to buy drives because of them pisses me off even more

  23. Re: Remote storage is miss understood by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

    The intent is not to backup all your porn and movies remotly. It's to backup critical data as well as provide remote access to some files. I strongly believe in a combination of local backups and remote backups. E.g. I backup my project data, programming files and emails to a remote storage. I also have a local backup wich is everything. My remote backup is just over 35gb and is synched and keeps a file version history so I can even go back in time.

  24. Actually banned from a retailer? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I hear stories like this all the time, though they rarely pan out. Granted, it is slightly more likely at a warehouse club where you need a member ID to make a purchase, but it still doesn't seem that likely. I'm no particular fan of costco, but I would love to hear their side of the story.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  25. Amazon Glacier by Mr.+White · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one mentioned recently started Amazon Glacier service.

    They do the same thing - probably more reliably.

    The pricing is $0.01 per GB / month. pricing

    But there is a 'gotcha': the service is ideal for archival storage and long term backup. It is not just for random cloud storage. Retrieval request takes 3-5 hours to fulfill and if you start downloading/retrieving too much, too often, you pay substantially more.

    1. Re:Amazon Glacier by xaxa · · Score: 1

      "Amazon Glacier is designed to provide average annual durability of 99.999 999 999% for an archive."

      So if I have a 1 000 000 000 000 byte = 1TB archive, after a year I should expect one byte of to be corrupted?

  26. Almost, but not quite... by slew · · Score: 2

    Costco generally limits markup to 15%, not 10%. Also, certain state laws require that Costco apply minimum markups to the selling prices for specific goods, such as tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and gasoline. Of course, some products are marked down for quick sale. However, the resultant average gross margin target is around 10%.

    They do, however, attempt to control their SG&A (overhead) to match their gross margin target of 10%. The net corporate profit is from membership fees which is why they try so hard to get you to sign up for executive memberships...

  27. Risk Plan? by eples · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's a cute story but I wouldn't trust them with my backup data.

    These people didn't have a risk plan for their business that included hard drive shortages?

    Their product isn't worth $10/mo ? (raising price)

    Can you imagine an airline that doesn't factor in changes in fuel prices? Or a farm that doesn't have a plan for drought?

    Bone for tuna!

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:Risk Plan? by rgbrenner · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine an airline that doesn't factor in changes in fuel prices?

      Airlines have fuel surcharges specifically because they didn't factor it in
      http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120723

      fedex, ups also have fuel surcharges in case you didn't notice.

  28. For various values of 'unlimited' by CdBee · · Score: 1

    Most online businesses eventually find that 'unlimited' = 'bankrupt once the VC cash runs out'

    I use Amazon S3 via Jungledisk (still waitinbg for Google Drive on Linux). I use it in preference to all cheaper options as I understand its profitable therefore will probably still exist if I ever need to do a full reinstall due to some disaster wiping out my onsite copies.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  29. Cue tasteless 9/11 commercial... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Lower Manhattan, September 11, 2001. 10:27am.)

    IT guy #1 (breathlessly): I can't believe it, the South Tower's gone! We had off-site backups, right?

    IT guy #2: Of course we did. Do you think I'm a complete idiot?

    Guy #1: Whew, that's a relief. So, where is it?

    Guy #2: Over there (points). In the North Tower...

    (fade as crescendo of screams are heard, and the remaining tower starts to fall...)

    1. Re:Cue tasteless 9/11 commercial... by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      I laughed. I hated myself for it, but I laughed.

      Personally, I use a Subversion repo provided by my web host. I've cut my restart time after a full wipe and reinstall from 2-3 hours down to less than one. My documents and personal file structure is completely contained in the repo, so all I have to do is start the download, and then go install all my programs while my documents recreate themselves locally.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  30. Best Hard Drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the link within TFA:

    We are constantly looking at new hard drives, evaluating them for reliability and power consumption. The Hitachi 3TB drive (Hitachi Deskstar 5K3000 HDS5C3030ALA630) is our current favorite for both its low power demand and astounding reliability. The Western Digital and Seagate equivalents we tested saw much higher rates of popping out of RAID arrays and drive failure. Even the Western Digital Enterprise Hard Drives had the same high failure rates. The Hitachi drives, on the other hand, perform wonderfully.

  31. Excuse me, I think I'll go elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see... $5/month to have my data stored by a dozen overworked guys pinching pennies to keep their startup going by calling their Moms to go to Costco to buy some hard drives for them. Or I can pay $4/month to store unlimited data from one computer (or $10/month for all my computers & NAS's) at a reliable, well-funded, long-lived company with enterprise storage experience, with a sophisticated, well-proven desktop client and real-time restore from a web client. Oh, and encrypted at the client so they can't see my data. (No need to mention any names here, just look around and you can find them.)

    Hmmm... not a tough decision...

  32. With my .5 cox upload speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is never going to back up any of my terabyte drives.

  33. Godwin's blueball stargate by epine · · Score: 1

    Whatever they do, it's for a business purpose.

    Dude, you're giving Godwin's law a bad case of blueballs. I hear you loud and clear. Genocide is good for business. Or they wouldn't be doing it. This view that rationality is whatever people do is tantamount to Godwin's Stargate.

    Pretty much the whole of where we need to focus our attention in this messy world is the universal patina in human affairs of lapsed rationality.

    The economic premise of "expressed preference" (that the discrepancy between stated goals and actions lies in the verbal blather) was a viable (if narrow and naive) hypothesis so long as the brain remained an inscrutable black box. We have fMRI now. The underpinnings of a consistency of expressed preference are barely detectable under the junk heap of cognitive artefact.

    Yet your little sermon remains a popular sermon. I'd be very interested to know what mental glee button it activates in the sermonizer. I'd also be interested to know why my mental "sigh" reflex is more powerful than most. Long ago I was attracted to Brouwer's intuitionism, where reasoning from contradiction is prohibited (this makes the enterprise less brittle to error, but also greatly impedes progress).

    Hilbert famously retorted "Taking the Principle of the Excluded Middle from the mathematician ... is the same as ... prohibiting the boxer the use of his fists."

    I guess my fists don't give me a hard-on.