Log in

No account? Create an account
Paid Members [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Paid Members

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Disk Space Upgrades [Mar. 7th, 2005|04:13 pm]
Paid Members


If you're interested, we're asking people to help us test our new disk space upgrade purchase options. More details can be found in fotobilder_user.

[User Picture]From: noweb4u
2005-03-08 03:24 am (UTC)
Who the hell is going to be running a multi-petabyte data array? NO ONE. They are not using that much space.

I was off by a bit. Okay, so lets do the math on the largest enterprise disk you can get (300GB Hitachi ultrastar). With RAID 5 (which offers the best redudancy the cheapest, many places don't use this, in favor of RAID 10, which requires double the disk space, for full mirroring), that's 6,640,000 MB for a 4 TB array, which would hold 16,000 users at 250MB, assuming there are no 100MB users at all (unlikely), or 40,000 unpaying users at 100MB. Sure, neither is currently even close, but over the next year or so, it very well could be. (and there WILL be users that use more than 250MB, especially as time goes on and they don't feel like archiving it somewhere and taking it offline).

Okay, so let's do the math on the drives. I found a steal on them, free second day shipping, $925.00 apiece. That's assuming they have U320 SCSI rather than Fibre channel, which is more common in enterprise storage.
That's 23 drives, for a total cost of $21,275.

They would have to sell 2128 accounts to pay for the drives alone, which will be mostly occupied by users who aren't paying extra for it.

> The controllers of these drives far outprice the drives themselves.

Another one time cost which really isn't that high.

A used system on ebay is $38,975, and that includes a paltry 384GB of useable disk space, and I don't even think it's capable of taking the drives I quoted above.

So now, we're up for $60,250, on the mythical idea they'd want to buy a system without support, and try and cram drives into it that it wasn't designed to take. I'm shooting low here on purpose (mostly because I've never seen netapp's quotes for a 4TB filer)

That's now 6025 accounts to subsidze this machine at paid user only levels.

Furthermore, the costs of transfer are not included in your equasion

Costs of transfer, you mean spending a few minutes (at MOST) transferring a data over gigabit ethernet? Costs practically nothing.

Real datacenters charge by your 95th percentile. An average website takes less than 1MB 95th percentile. I would put livejournal somewhere around the 50MB/sec mark, 95th percentile. Livejournal apparently gets around 100,000 queries per second, according to their presentation, estimating 1k of transfer per hit, which is a conservative number.

That's $2,500/mo for the line, as it stands, with no further traffic, estimating a really cheap price of $50/mb for 50MB commit on a 100MB burstable connection.

That places a lowball figure of $30,000/year for bandwidth, which would go up. Yes, LJ currently pays for this. We'll estimate that it brings up traffic another 10 MB/sec, which is another $500/mo. Not much, you're right, but it adds up, as they must add this into their infrastucture costs as well.

Add in the costs of a credit card authorization (for me it's $0.20, plus 2.20%, so there's about $0.50 of the $10 right there.

Wow, a tiny percentage for CC charges, oh my!

For our 6000 users, that totals up to be $3000 you can't count on.
(Which drags the minimum users back up a bit)

Then someone who has skills and knowledge and experience dealing with large arrays,[...], which adds to the costs as well.

LJ has no such experts. See: last LJ blackout.

No, you're just an idiot. They just didn't protect against both power supplies at their datacenter failing, along with the battery plant, the generator, and the transfer switch. That's a freak thing, and if they only have $2.5M/year with no outside investment I'd not expect them to replicate their site in a different datacenter.
They manage several hundred servers to provide an overall uptime of 99.9% over a 3 year period, for a free service, where only a few percent actually pay to use it. Yea, you're right, they're dumbasses.

I presume you could do better?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: njyoder
2005-03-08 03:35 am (UTC)
Yes, I most certainly could. All I see is a lot of blah blah blah and ignoring the fact that other companies still do the same for a lot less. Nice try Mr. Apologist but the Real World(TM) business men disagree with your assessment. LJ is groslly overpriced compared to virtually every other competitor. Even non-technical people here have the common sense to see that, but you don't.

Why would they use an outdated pre-built NetApp anyway? They already pay for redundant bandwidth, bandwidth isn't even the issue. All you've got is a bunch of tiny "it adds up" arguments.

I've got a one sentence argument that beats all of yours: other companies do the same for much less. Must suck to have gone through all that effort to have your argument easily shot down?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: noweb4u
2005-03-08 03:53 am (UTC)

Why would they use an outdated pre-built NetApp anyway? They already pay for redundant bandwidth, bandwidth isn't even the issue. All you've got is a bunch of tiny "it adds up" arguments.

They wouldn't. I was finding lowest possible prices period, so you couldn't come back later and say my numbers were too high because you can get bla bla bla on ebay, etc.

Sounds to me like you just want for them to make it cheaper. I suppose since you've got 100+ public photos, I could see your arguments for making it cheaper. You just don't want to pay them to do it, and you realize that you either don't have the skill to host them elsewhere, or the desire. So you blather on and on about how it's a conspiracy, how it's unfair, how other companies do the same for much less. Good, jump ship. Why the hell did you pay for livejournal, anyway, if you consider it overpriced? Why are you still hosting your photos on livejournal, rather than ordering one of those drives and doing it yourself?

I guess I can sum this up to one thing, you're one of those people who has neither the skills or doesn't have the desire, and instead wants to sit and bitch about how everyone else should be cheaper.

I'm holding a pity party for you at your house right now. See you there!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: njyoder
2005-03-08 04:03 am (UTC)
You retard, I'm using only 6.18% of my storage space from after months of use. Your AD HOMINEM attack is baseless. The storage space, mind you, which comes with the bare minimum paid account. Why would I host elsewhere when it comes with the paid account already?

Are you going to address my argument at all? The fact is photo hosting and other storage hosting services are all cheaper than LJ, by a considerable amount. This is about UPGRADING storage space, not using the pre-allocated 100MB. I already have a seperate web hoster with 400MB+ space anyawy if I really wanted to host off site.

Really, you're just pathetic apologist who couldn't come up with anything better than an ad hominem attack. The fact of the matter is: compared to every other service out there, they are overcharging. THerefore LJ is overcharing, QED.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lensovet
2005-03-10 02:45 am (UTC)

since you got me interested....

do you have specific companies/services that charge less? i would also like to point out immediately that i'm talking specifically about photo-sharing services.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: 4am_confessions
2005-03-28 07:43 am (UTC)
agreed with lenosvet.

whereas your opponent has provided actual evidence that lj is, in fact, NOT overcharging, you ascertain without any comparable evidence that they are.

who's right? not you. not until you can live up to your own argument. that's the way it works in debate, an offshoot of the real world.

I'm inclined to vote for noweb4u.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)