• Specal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I can speak from experience that content delivery is harder than storage. Companies like YouTube tackle the storage issue by having tiered storage levels. Trending content is stored on SSDs, new and often viewed content is stored on harddrives with a caching system similar to optane and archived storage (essentially old videos that very rarely get views) goes on tape storage. It’s really cool, and it allows massive about of storage in a small space, it’s costs alot to implement but because of the tape storage they essentially have “infinite” (it’s not really infinite of course but it’s a problem for next decade not this decade).

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fair enough, but that’s YouTube, who can afford all of it. Of course, if you have tons of money, you don’t need to count pennies where counting them would just slow you down.

      But take a competitor - how can a different service be viable if they lack money to have (virtually) infinite storage? Heavy moderation or monetization. Youtube kinda does the second one.

      To reiterate, I am not saying you say things that are not correct.