Storage is cheap even when you need high volume. It’s literally the cheapest component in the architecture. High performance, in this context, is about replication and caching. Replication is expensive because of network utilization, caching is expensive because of the high demand. Neither are really a function of how much content is stored but about how much content is demanded. If I were to guess, likely less than 10% of all of YouTube’s content makes up 95% of its costs.
I think the biggest issue with YouTube and smaller sites is that they have way to much cost overhead.
We need a better solution for storing and serving content.
Storage is the cheapest thing of all the things.
Not when you need high volume and high performance
Storage is cheap even when you need high volume. It’s literally the cheapest component in the architecture. High performance, in this context, is about replication and caching. Replication is expensive because of network utilization, caching is expensive because of the high demand. Neither are really a function of how much content is stored but about how much content is demanded. If I were to guess, likely less than 10% of all of YouTube’s content makes up 95% of its costs.