Is your argument that they could have had 10x less vulnerability to data loss while operating at the same cost and backing up the same amount of total data? (If so, then this really is a valuable skill)
Or are you saying that they should have backed up 10x less data in order to have the 10x more redundant copies? That's a value decision on what to prioritize (more data saved vs 'good enough' resiliency).
Donations would be the best way to solve this problem so that they don't have to make this trade off in the first place.
The decision here was: For the given budget we have, where do we make the reliability vs data backed-up trade off? Increasing one necessarily decreases the other.
The options are:
- Increase reliability but decrease how much data capacity they have
- Increase data capacity at the cost of lower reliability
- Remove the "given the budget we have" constraint via fundraising. With more funding they can afford to increase both
You can see the decision they made for the fixed budget option. Now we can help them remove their constraint with extra donations (Every $5 helps. I've already donated)
Simply not true. Encoding schemes represent a whole different set of tradeoff possibilities which you don't seem to have considered, and simple replication is worse than other options in terms of both reliability and efficiency.
Or are you saying that they should have backed up 10x less data in order to have the 10x more redundant copies? That's a value decision on what to prioritize (more data saved vs 'good enough' resiliency).
Donations would be the best way to solve this problem so that they don't have to make this trade off in the first place.