Interesting, not sure how I missed that (edit: I missed the 4x on the drive count). Thanks for mentioning it.
And, yes it's a different comparison, but that's why I was asking; I was curious if it was even viable (and initial searches had indicated it wasn't). 4-5x cheaper than S3 as a substrate is potentially workable.
Yeah, I mean thats what like ~$4.9/TB/Month including 4TB+ of internet transfer at a substrate level. So with say 10 servers on 8+2 parity you're looking at ~$6/TB/Month including >5TB of internet. Probably makes sense until you can fill at least one whole rack and buy a 2X100Gb internet connection.
And, yes it's a different comparison, but that's why I was asking; I was curious if it was even viable (and initial searches had indicated it wasn't). 4-5x cheaper than S3 as a substrate is potentially workable.