It absolutely matters how large your storage use is. Terabytes of storage is easily manageable on even basic consumer hardware. Terabytes of storage costs just hundreds of dollars if you are not paying the cloud tax.
If you got resiliency and uptime for a extra hundred dollars a year, that would be a no-brainer for any commercial operation. The byzantine kafkaesque horror of the cloud results in trivial problems and costs ballooning into nearly insurmountable and cost-ineffective obstacles.
These are not hard or costly problems or difficult scales. They have been made hard and costly and difficult.
Your pedantry is just boring. Yes, I used the word terabyte instead I guess something more palatable to you for being large. Fine s/exabyte/terabyte/.
I work with buckets where single files are >1 terabyte. There's more than one of these files, hence terabytes. I'm not going to do a human-readable summary listing of an entire bucket to get the full size. The point of the actual size is irrelevant. When people are spending 5-6 digits on cloud storage per month, they are not going to do it in multiple places. period. Maybe the new storage unit should just be monthly cloud spend, but then your pedantry will say nonsense like which cloud sever, which storage solution type, blah blah blah.
Ah yes, let us just gloss over 6 orders of magnitude when we are discussing cost-effectiveness and feasibility. What is the difference between 100$ and 100,000,000$ of spend really? Basically the same thing.
If you got resiliency and uptime for a extra hundred dollars a year, that would be a no-brainer for any commercial operation. The byzantine kafkaesque horror of the cloud results in trivial problems and costs ballooning into nearly insurmountable and cost-ineffective obstacles.
These are not hard or costly problems or difficult scales. They have been made hard and costly and difficult.