From @e12e on Sun Apr 05 2015 20:45:50 GMT+0000 (UTC)
If I push a few TB of data into ipfs (say some media files, install isos etc) – is that a reasonable use of the technology? How could/should I assure that the network has the capacity to safely store the data, with suitable redundancy? If I dedicate a few TB of disk on my server to ipfs – can I make sure that some sensible portion is reserved for my use?
Copied from original issue: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/5
1 Like
From @whyrusleeping on Mon Apr 06 2015 00:07:02 GMT+0000 (UTC)
Data added to ipfs is only stored locally until another interested party requests it from you. ipfs itself (the protocol) provides no guarantees of redundancy or remote storage.
1 Like
From @jbenet on Mon Apr 06 2015 03:00:18 GMT+0000 (UTC)
I’ll add that that’s why Filecoin exists-- as a way to incentivize networks of people to replicate/backup your data.
From @sudhirj on Thu Dec 03 2015 18:09:57 GMT+0000 (UTC)
BTW, could someone confirm that ipfs add makes a copy of the data I’m adding? So to add 1TB of data into IPFS I’ll need at least 2 TB on my disk?
From @whyrusleeping on Thu Dec 03 2015 18:18:55 GMT+0000 (UTC)
@sudhirj that is correct. Similar to adding files into git, in the future we may find a way to work around this.
From @sudhirj on Fri Dec 04 2015 13:59:30 GMT+0000 (UTC)
Okay. Then let’s put down alternative options for others as well (I’m looking at it for large-file data distribution). The alternatives to this are
- Mount the IPFS datastore as a FUSE drive (requires root permissions and special installation) - will this take care of everything automatically? Is copying a file into the mounted folder same as
ipfs add, for instance? - Assuming a FUSE mount, can regular IPFS commands like
ipfs pinbe used on data on the mounted drive?