Thanks for the response, I didn't realize you could add extras more than once. That will solve my problems for now. It still seems strange to me that other VPS or hosting companies are able to offer more storage for less money, but it's worth it to me to pay more to have great hosting.

If you ever can I'd still really appreciate some way to get cheaper storage.

Don't forget you could consider "cloud" storage. For example, sign up with a 3rd party storage provider and mount the storage to your linode server. It wont be as fast as local storage but you can get the best price/quanity of storage you want.

We realize this (and the flooding has made this even more true), but there seems to be a strong demand for less fast, less redundant, less backed up, non-directly-attached storage at Linode.

It's like, you guys are selling us nothing but Tesla Roadsters when really we need a greyhound bus to supplement that. The roadsters we have are super awesome when we just need to move one or two people, but when we need to move 80 people, we can't afford to buy 40 roadsters to do it!

Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver.

OK, then how about this:

It's like you're selling me 20GB of expensive but super fast storage when really I need 200GB of slow and cheap bulk storage.

The 20GB of super fast storage is fine for most of my data, but not infrequently accessed bulk files like photoshop or illustrator stuff.

I see it more like "you're selling me 20Gb of reliable disk; I want 200Gb of disk... " conveniently missing out the "reliable" part. Which won't work because you know the first time people lose data 'cos of lack of redundancy and battery back up and the rest then there will be screams and people bitching at linode.

_________________
Rgds
Stephen
(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

It doesn't have to be less reliable, just less fast.

Example: They're currently using 15K RPM SAS drives in RAID for storage, they could be using enterprise-grade 5400 or 7200RPM SATA drives in RAID for a SAN product.

The cost-per-gig is out of whack now because of the floods, but here's two comparisons (newegg.ca pricing):

15k RPM SAS 600GB (Cheetah): $1.14/GB
7200RPM SATA 2TB (Constellation ES): $0.21/GB

Both are enterprise-grade drives, and I'm assuming both are in similar RAID configurations, so the reliability between these setups should be the same. But the cost per gig is still dramatically lower.

If I can get 20GB of fast reliable storage from Linode for $20, shouldn't I be able to get 100GB of slow reliable storage from Linode for $20?

EDIT: Or just storage linodes, which used the exact same disk configuration (RAID10) as regular linodes, but use cheaper enterprise SATA drives to bump up storage allotments; you can then let the customers manage the data themselves and avoid the complexity of managing a SAN. It would be a very simple thing for Linode to do, because they just have to build the machines with a different kind of drive. Of course, it'd require changes to the linode manager.

Would these really be able to be enough cheaper to make a difference? I'm guessing not, I don't think the disks are enough of the cost of the hardware/rack space/personnel/etc to make that big a difference.

It's not about them being cheaper, it's about storage linodes having more but slower storage capacity for free. Yes, the drives would be a bit cheaper, since you can only get 333% the storage in the same physical space (since I don't think anybody has enterprise-grade 3TB or 4TB drives yet), but it's about getting more space for the same price, not the same space for a smaller price.

Of course there's a catch, do you really think "unlimited" space is actually possible?

@glg - please don't feed the "peleus bot" - it does nothing but resurrect (very) old dead threads with nonsense posts.

I can't figure out the purpose - normally it would be click bait - but it doesn't have a link in any of it's posts (unless maybe Linode strips them out).

Although puzzling, it's more annoying then the mystery it presents.

_________________
Either provide enough details for people to help, or sit back and listen to the crickets chirp.
Security thru obscurity is a myth - and really really annoying.

I usually click on "most recent", didn't scroll up to see it was such an old thread, but you're right, it's odd, usually these have click-bait like the other one that's posted a couple times.