lets look at this from another perspective: Some datacenters allow for others to used slots inside their datacenters. would a small company running off a single server inside one of these datacenters be aright with the increased risk of possible damage to thier servers?
the cost of storage here is assuming "live" storage. "Cold" storage is 10 times cheaper than live storage, and has the ability to not require a upkeep cost other than to keep it compatible with current technology.
so $50 a year is now too much for a large company to tag onto employee costs? If someone is making $30,000 a year, whats another $50. The problem might be in multi-year retention, in which a 2 year employee will require $100 of storage and so on. but this does not account for the diminishing price in memory costs or other, associated costs. Maintaining a 10 year archive at that price, and assuming that employees where putting out 10gb of data 10 years ago, would cost $500 a employee, and scale that up to a larger company, and you can see data storage prices in the millions. This is assuming that the data is:
1)Stored serverside
2)Not kept only as a physical backup after lets say 3 years. It would be cheaper in the long run to after some point x to move everyting to hard storage and keep it offline, only to be used in the case of lawsuits and other, archival needs. Using a model like this allows for near unlimited storage time with minimal costs. If a new format of storage comes about, the biggest pain might be updating these records, but in the terms of memory costs for such a operation, look at the advancements in storage space; 10 years ago, people thought 10gb was large.
Slashdot Mirror
*&(*&, i feel way behind now, looks like i need to go back to 5th grade...
lets look at this from another perspective: Some datacenters allow for others to used slots inside their datacenters. would a small company running off a single server inside one of these datacenters be aright with the increased risk of possible damage to thier servers?
i wonder if they would launch a spaceship into space...
ESA == NSA?? they seem to have varing goals...
the cost of storage here is assuming "live" storage. "Cold" storage is 10 times cheaper than live storage, and has the ability to not require a upkeep cost other than to keep it compatible with current technology.
so $50 a year is now too much for a large company to tag onto employee costs? If someone is making $30,000 a year, whats another $50. The problem might be in multi-year retention, in which a 2 year employee will require $100 of storage and so on. but this does not account for the diminishing price in memory costs or other, associated costs. Maintaining a 10 year archive at that price, and assuming that employees where putting out 10gb of data 10 years ago, would cost $500 a employee, and scale that up to a larger company, and you can see data storage prices in the millions. This is assuming that the data is: 1)Stored serverside 2)Not kept only as a physical backup after lets say 3 years. It would be cheaper in the long run to after some point x to move everyting to hard storage and keep it offline, only to be used in the case of lawsuits and other, archival needs. Using a model like this allows for near unlimited storage time with minimal costs. If a new format of storage comes about, the biggest pain might be updating these records, but in the terms of memory costs for such a operation, look at the advancements in storage space; 10 years ago, people thought 10gb was large.