Home | Cloud | Google’s Hollow Cloud Storage Offering
Google’s Hollow Cloud Storage Offering

Google’s Hollow Cloud Storage Offering

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Buffer 0 LinkedIn 0 Filament.io 0 Flares ×

Reading this recent article on ZDNet I was struck by the pointlessness of Google’s 1TB of user storage offering.  This may seem like a bold statement, but let’s look at the figures and the offering.  If you buy a Chromebook Pixel, it comes with 1TB of Google Drive storage for three years.  Sadly the ZDNet article in question goes on to try and highlight how this is a great deal, if you need 1TB of space.

However, what doesn’t get discussed is the time it would take to both make use of that storage and get off it in three years’ time if you went with another storage provider.

Average UK broadband speed is now apparently 9Mb/s, although there are hotspot areas (me included) where bandwidth is available as high as 100Mb/s.  I do see that speed at quiet times during the day (in fact I’ve seen it as high as 120Mb/s) but in reality at busy times it doesn’t get above 20Mb/s.  It’s also worth remembering that almost all the broadband delivery in the UK (even the super-fast Virgin service) is asymmetric, so download is much faster than upload.  Upload is what counts for using cloud storage, because if we can’t get it into the cloud – then we can’t download it.

If we do calculations on throughput, making simple assumptions of 100% efficiency on the line, 8 bits per byte and a 10:1 ratio on upload speed, then we see that at 9Mb/s, it would take 105 days to upload 1TB of data to Google Drive.  In reality we’re never going to achieve that level of efficiency, or dedicate all our bandwidth traffic to uploading files to Google.  In addition, broadband providers have limits on upload volumes too.  Even if we use the full bandwidth during an eight hour day, that still means it would take almost a year to load up 1TB of content.

There are a few other things worth noting here.  The terms and conditions for the free space offer seem a little confused, referencing smaller capacity values.  However moving past that, we see that the 1TB offer is per Google account.  Buying 10 Pixels only gets you the 1TB of storage, not 10TB.

Second there’s the question of caching.  The Pixel only comes with 32GB of SSD, of which the usable capacity will be less.  This means an awful lot of network traffic back and forth to access your content.  At best, only 3% of your content will be on the local device.  This again cuts into your upload bandwidth capacity.

Third, if you’re using a Google Drive account on non-Google devices, then all of the content will be stored locally (except any Google Docs files).  So, if you share your Google account across devices, your capacity will be limited to the hard drive size of your biggest device, not the 1TB figure.

Lastly, we should talk about the cost of providing this storage.  A single external 1TB hard drive can be purchased for as little as £55 ( $85) on Amazon today.  Retail 3TB hard drives are as low as £92 ($138), or $46 per TB.  Assuming Google even pay retail prices (and we know they won’t), then even with a mirrored configuration (RAID-1), Google have made their money back on the disk in 2 months, during which, you will have failed to upload anywhere near 1TB of content to make use of your allowance.

The Architect’s View

What seems like a good deal frequently isn’t.  Retail prices for cloud storage far outstrip the cost of using local drives.  Of course large data centres cost money to build and run and that adds increases Google’s cost of providing that 1TB to you.  However, some people in the industry have decided that we don’t need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  The Transporter, for example lets consumers share data without requiring it being placed into the cloud.  Cloud storage is good for many things, but at this stage, the financials of storing terabytes online just don’t stack up.

About Chris M Evans

  • http://www.ewanleith.com/ Ewan Leith

    There’s certainly issues with uploading (and the list price Google are putting on 1TB of storage, when they’re also willing to give it away for free..), but I think cloud storage only really comes into it’s own when online applications and services can store files on your cloud drive (Google or otherwise) without it first going onto your local PC.

    For example, Trovebox is a photo archiving service, a bit like flickr, that can store files on Dropbox, Amazon S3, or other storage services, which is pretty clever.

    • http://thestoragearchitect.com/ Chris M Evans


      That’s an interesting distinction to make. The ability to feed your cloud storage from other sources could make a difference. Especially if that was from music or video sources (like your music collection purchases). This may be more relevant in the future, as we have more devices like SLR cameras that can upload directly to your cloud storage.


  • Nomecks

    1TB of storage costs Google far more than $48. Saying that it only costs them the price of the drive fails to take into account the array that the drive goes in, facilities, man power, disaster recovery etc. I’d assume they’re offering 1TB of space fully knowing that nobody will use it right away because lots of people (including the author!) believe that 1TB of storage is a worthless amount, based on what it costs to get a single desktop drive.

    As for bandwidth, sure it may only be an average of 9Mb/s in the UK, however that fails to take into account that rural speeds drag down the average. Urban users will generally get higher speeds. For example, here in Canada, I can get 250mbit down, 20 up, which would change the total upload time to around 5 days. Chances are I’m not going to try and full all 1TB of space at once, so that seems reasonable to me.

    • http://thestoragearchitect.com/ Chris M Evans


      You’re right, 1TB of storage doesn’t cost Google $48. I did say Google’s cost of providing includes data centres etc. So the true figure will be higher. But my point is order of magnitude in costs versus charge, especially when we consider it would take the average consumer many months (if not forever) to reach 1TB. Google will have plenty of statistics that show how user data growth trends and in a large shared pool, even if there are users using 1TB, the average will be pretty consistent and known. It’s a bit like thin provisioning. Once you know what works in your site, then it’s a good rule of thumb.

      As for bandwidth, I agree, many places have higher bandwidth. The BBC article which I referenced (and I should have linked to, but didn’t by mistake), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19267090

      …shows the average of 9Mb/s. Only 8% of homes have higher than 30Mb/s, which in reality won’t actually work that fast most of the time.

      Thanks for your comments & feedback!


  • Allen Falcon

    A few things to note. The 4G LTE service I have gets me 36Mbps bandwidth.

    Beyond that, what do you do with the data at the end of three years? If you refresh your device, you will probably get another 3 years. Or, the account reverts to paid and you pay. If you’re not using the full TB, you can reduce the size of your subscription to what you need.

  • http://twitter.com/yagnavalky Suresh S

    Nice post. If you take into account that network speeds in my place (India) are lower than the speeds you have mentioned, you can see how much more tougher it can get.
    And agree with you that what seems to be a great deal doesn’t turn out all that great many a times. People need to look into multiple aspects before jumping to a conclusion.

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Buffer 0 LinkedIn 0 Filament.io 0 Flares ×