Green NAS, Not-Green Cloud, it says

[stevech]

This is, er, curious:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nas-storage-hdd-green-energy,19386.html#xtor=RSS-1815

 

[jdabbs]

Redundant power supplies, redundant UPSs, diesel backup generators, active cooling systems, and 24/7 operations staff use more energy than a cupboard?

That's some hard-hitting analysis.

 

[stevech]

they'd have to do the math: Of the giant infrastructure of power, A/C, backup, etc., my little 100GB (or whatever) is x% of that.
Plus the energy needed to sustain the internet route.

The cost premium is data safety, I suppose.

 

[leyonchung]

I totally disagree with the points mentioned in the article published on Tomsharware - Apparently, Cloud has taken the market over, and this is realistically proven. Without any uncertainty, i would agree with the point that NAS is among the reliable source to take your data on/with. But when we talk about Cloud, it will be justified if we place it above all - because the future is of Cloud solutions, and it has innumerable advantages affixed with it, like; scalability, cost-effective and significantly the Green Cloud Hosting namely, Green Cloud environment... I have read a couple of questions on the web regarding, is Cloud Computing Green? Both Yes and No.... The source URL is something that i found a good resource to learn.

 

[stevech]

Hmmm: Analogy is "energy efficient mass transit busses". Here in So. CA where we have no decent trains or subways, they get huge Federal grants to buy big articulated busses. BIG ones.

My years of observation is that these huge fuel-burning behemoths have an average occupancy rate of about 3%. Is that efficient?