Hacker News Reader

I would like to just have a storage engine that can be very aggressive at deduplicating stuff. If some data is redundant, why am I storing it twice?

View on HN

That's already pretty common, but the goal isn't storing less data for its own sake.

> the goal isn't storing less data for its own sake.

Isn't it? I was under impression that the problem is the cost storing all this stuff

Nope, you can't just look at cost of storage and try to minimize it. There are a lot of other things that matter.

What I am asking is, what are the other concerns other than literally the cost? I have interest in this area and I am seeing everyone saying that observability companies are overcharging their consumers.

We're currently discussing the cost of _storage_, and you can bet the providers already are deduplicating it. You just don't get those savings - they get increased margins.

I'm not going to quote the article or other threads here to you about why reducing storage just for the sake of cost isn't the answer.

Well, that's a weirdly confrontational reply. But thanks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com