archiving as opposed to backing up

[Paul Koning]

>>>>> "patrick" == patrick  <Patrick> writes:

 >> > A useful service I admit. You could implement this by simulating
 >> a > remote "mount" using an ssh tunnel, or (ugh) NFS.
 >> 
 >> I'd like to, since even at the lowest service level (5GB) I think
 >> the $9.95 per month charge is a bit much, at least for a cheap
 >> bastard like me.

 patrick> Funny you should say that Sellam.  I've been thinking a bit
 patrick> about their business model since the topic came up.  If
 patrick> they're using RAID 0+1 (adequate and cheaper than RAID 5 for
 patrick> this application), and assuming they use "street" 73GB SCSI
 patrick> hard drives, then, ignoring the processor the drives are
 patrick> connected to, it would cost them over $400 for 73GB worth of
 patrick> drives (a pair for 0+1, SCA), ...

Not to detract from your argument in this particular case, but...

RAID 5 is cheaper than RAID 1, because a larger fraction of the disk
capacity is useful capacity.

Also, if you want capacity, you should be looking at (S)ATA disk based
solutions, of which there are a bunch, not SCSI or FC based.  SCSI and
FC are the ultra high performance technology point, not the high
capacity point.

	 paul