uk.local.hampshire

On 04 Aug 2007 10:39:52 GMT, andrew@ (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

>In article ,
> Chris Blunt writes:
>> On 03 Aug 2007 19:18:04 GMT, andrew@ (Andrew
>> Gabriel) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7da5b3dk7p65s4em237sa9if6h2oatf3e1@ >,
>>> Chris Blunt writes:
>>>>
>>>> I stated the hardware costs required to store 18TB of data in response
>>>> to your suggestion that it would be impractical to retain those
>>>> volumes of data. I really don't know why you're having a problem with
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>The cost of the hardware required to store 18TB of data is
>>>insignificant in the total costs of storing data.
>>
>> Mass storage devices of this type are now becoming consumer items. You
>> just set them up and they sit there working on your desktop without
>> needing much attention at all. The environmental and management
>> considerations are no more sophisticated than that of a basic home
>> computer system. I know this because I use them myself at home.
>
>Hum, on the Rumsfeld scale, you are at the "unknown unknowns" level.
>
>You probably don't have to protect your data at home from criminals
>who want to specifically target it for destruction, which can
>include destruction of your site (home) as a means to do so.
>
>You probably don't have to have your data spread across multiple
>sites for resiliance with high speed secured interconnects.
>
>You probably don't have to provide access to your data 24x7 within
>a tiny fraction of the time it takes to restore from backups when
>a filesystem goes corrupt or more disks fail in your array than
>you can recover from without a full restore.
>
>You probably don't have to be able to prove that your data at home
>hasn't been tampered with by keeping a detailed untamperable audit
>of everyone who's had physical access to the systems and everyone
>who's had networked access to the systems, and exactly what they
>did to the data.
>
>You probably don't have to prove that the data on your systems has
>not been modified by hardware errors.
>
>You probably don't have enough disks and systems that you have to
>have secondary systems to control their physical environment (aircon,
>etc). Your power requirements can probably be met with a single 13A
>socket outlet, rather than a 3-phase 11kV supply.
>
>You probably don't have to have maintenace contracts with suppliers
>to come and fix breakdowns within 2 hours, 24x7.
>
>You probably don't have to have independant auditors in on a
>regular basis to check and test your data integrity, and confirm it
>meets the requirements imposed on you.
>
>You probably don't even account for your own time costs in managing
>your data, leave alone the costs of the other people who do all the
>other functions you are missing.
>
>[I could go on]
>
>Not all of these will be required for every commercial data storage
>facility -- it will depend on the SLA it provides. However, every
>one of these points costs more to put in place than the storage disks.
>So as I said before, the cost of the disks is completely insignificant.


All that for a motorway camera which the other poster here suggested
wasn't worth having switched on 24/7 anyway?