银行的技术限制是什么，导致它们只能向您提供 18 个月的历史记录？
对于我的两个银行账户，我只能访问 18 个月的历史记录。
要访问较旧的帐户历史记录，您必须为每份旧对账单支付一定金额。 银行为什么要这么做？ 当我们拥有更大的硬盘和更便宜的存储空间时，这种做法不应该消失吗？
For both my bank accounts I can only access 18 months of history.
To access older account history, you have to pay a certain amount of money for each old statement. Why do banks do that? Shouldn't this practice go away as we get bigger hard disks and cheaper storage?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（6）
几乎所有数据存储解决方案的致命弱点都是备份。 如果没有必要的话，没有人愿意保留不经常在线访问的数据，因为在线数据比离线数据成本更高。 不幸的是，一旦数据不再在线，获取就变得更加困难，通常需要手动过程。 无论数据是否真的不再在线可用，这都是访问旧数据的费用的来源。
我知道我们会在学生离开大学后大约 13 个月删除他们的旧数据。 是的，一旦数据被移至离线存储，我们也会收取恢复费用。
The Achilles Heel of nearly all data storage solutions is backup. Nobody wants to keep data that is infrequently accessed on-line if they don't have to because online data costs more than offline data. Unfortunately, once the data is no longer online, it becomes much harder to get at, often involving manual processes. Whether the data is truly not available online anymore or not, this is the origin of the fee for accessing older data.
I know that we remove older data for our students about 13 months after they leave the University. And, yes, we too charge a fee to recover the data once it has been removed to offline storage.
没有技术限制。 银行必须赚钱，而对相对不起眼的服务收费是他们赚钱的方式之一。
There is no technical limitation. Banks have to make money, and charging for relatively obscure services is one of the ways they do that.
旧数据进入存档分区，因此可以更快地搜索和保存（阅读有关数据库分区的信息）。
Old data goes into an archive partition so searches and saves can be made faster (read about database partitioning).
他们想要你的钱。 我怀疑这方面存在巨大的技术限制。 银行很贪婪。 您只需要偶尔使用较旧的语句。 如果您这样做，您可能愿意付费。
They want your money. I doubt there is a huge tech limitation on this. Banks are greedy. You only need older statments once in a while. If you do, you are probably willing to pay.
我不认为它是一项技术。 限制，因为它像所有其他银行费用一样产生美元。
但我确实认为，银行考虑了这一点，并认为除了赚取美元之外，大多数用户都会对 18 个月感到非常满意，因此进一步收费是合理的。
I don't think it's near as much a tech. limitation as it is a $ generator like all the other bank fees.
I do imagine though, banks thought about this and felt besides making $ that the majority of users out their will be more than happy with 18 months and thus charging to go back further is a reasonable charge.
保留数据“磁盘”似乎相对简单，但这并没有考虑到该数据跨多个系统所需的层层冗余和备份。 通常，生成单个语句的数据包括数百甚至数千个事务和数据点，并且很多时候生成这些语句是为了从原始数据向用户显示。
从经验来看，我们的目标是在实时系统中保留七年的数据，之后系统可能会转向“非实时备份”或完全丢弃。
It may seem like it's relatively simple to keep a 'disk' of data, but that doesn't take in to account the layers and layers of redundancy and back-ups that this data requires across several systems. Often times the data to generate a single statement includes hundreds if not thousands of transactions and data points, and many times these statements are generated to display to the user from raw data.
Speaking from experience, we aim to keep seven years of data in live systems, and after that, the system may either move to 'non-live backup' or discard altogether.