
Press X to Doubt
> Pure Storage kit that Hansson wrote will cost less than $200,000 a year to operate
Everybody knows that AWS S3 is costly and if you just want raw storage, it's not the appropriate tool for this.
But there's absolutely no way that operating 18 petabytes of storage could cost "less than $200,000 a year".
In salary alone, having the competent workers operating it would cost probably five times that.
And then if one's want to be fair, they have to compare what they actually get. And again, I doubt they'll have S3 SLAs with their in-house solution.
Which they probably doesn't need and that's fine, but just don't say "look how cheaper I paid for this M&S sandwich compared to this meal at a Michelin restaurant!"
It's annoying on both side: the cloud sycophants and the on-prem nuts.
Can't we just get pragmatism back? Use the right tool for the job?