Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can fit 72 x 8TB pretty easily into 4u with off-the-shelf hardware. with custom-built 2.5" ssd enclosures you could probably fit more in the same space.
Can you link to the shelf / hardware? I'm curious
Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
81–90 of 222 posts
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#82Great to see a smaller, very open company remaining competitive against the giants in the space like Amazon. I'm particularly excited to see how their B2 service will stack up to Glacier for half the cost.
Yev from Backblaze here -> We're pretty excited about it. Beta users are providing some good feedback too! We think it'll definitely be the right choice for a lot of folks!
Hi Yev! I commented on a previous post about Backblaze cloud storage and if it was at a point to replace S3 for static assets. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10259507
"Is this going to work for static asset hosting such as for low cost FE assets? Can this be set to serve an index file from the root directory? Doe's it provide you a public URL to your (stealing s3 terms) bucket? Just curious as to why I would migrate from S3 for FE assets to Backblaze."
Was wondering if any progress has been made since then, especially relating to serving an index document from root dir.
Thanks!
edit: Awesome blog post btw
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
What order of magnitude? There are 60 drive chassis in 4U you can get[0][1], but even a 4TB -> 6TB drive + 15 more drives isn't exactly an order of magnitude. And they have 2 10GiB ports, though I'm sure you can work with them and get more.. It's disingenuous to call this not "state of the art" when it's really quite close, and obviously is meeting a backblaze design goal. [0]: http://www.newisys.com/Products/4600.sh…
You can do a lot more than 60, and you can get a lot bigger than 6T. > It's disingenuous to call this not "state of the art" when it's really quite close, and obviously is meeting a backblaze design goal. So, I never said it didn't meet their design goal; it looks like quite a nice system, and it's better than their previous gen. Looks like they're doing things right, looks like solid engineering. But I stand by the…
> you can get a lot bigger than 6T
Come on - most companies reasonably can't. There's a WD 10T smr/helium drive, and seagate is selling that crap 8T video drive. Unless you're talking ssd 3d/TLC density (more $), or the vapor-ware 20T drives that some storage vendors hint at and don't let me file a PO for, I literally don't know what you're referring to (now I'm getting where I can't name names)
The reason I'm complaining is because of you don't state:
- what the current state of the art is that they're not meeting
- what they could do better with their design goals given that information.
You merely state that it's just not state of the art, and to come work at dropbox. This is what I mean by being disingenuous.
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#84Worth pointing out (for those of you not in the storage game) that these appliances, while cool, are pretty far from state of the art. We're (Dropbox) packing up to an order of magnitude more storage into 4U. And costs aren't close, let alone the addressable throughput given that you guys just went to 10G. Serious kudos though are due for the Backblaze blog. You're all at least talking about what you're up to, which…
You guys are able to fit 1.8PB into a single 4U? Seriously impressive..!
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 96 bay 4U chassis is readily available http://www.raidinc.com/products/object-storage/ability-4u-96... but that's still not a magnitude.
Heh, any place where I have to request a quote before they show me a price makes me nervous :D
It should if you're thinking of buying one-offs. But at bigger scales like yours, you can either invest in crew to design chassis, or in purchasing people to deal with other sales people.
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having sold a company to IBM, I can attest that this issue would be a Big Problem. {Edit: I mean for any company that used BlackBlaze diagrams labeled "proprietary."}
A big problem for BB if they were to have open source-licensed tech and got acquired by a megacorp, or a big problem for a "kinda-sorta-licensee" of their tech once acquired?
A problem for a startup using these documents without a clear license.
It would not be a problem for Back Blaze being acquired.
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link to the shelf / hardware? I'm curious
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/4U/6047/SSG-6047R-...
Surprised at the layout of the drives. Would make it a huge pain to actually replace failing disks - but I like that they put a decent Xeon on there.
The connectivity to the drives is really quite bad, but now I'm just being picky. Thank you for the link, really appreciate the follow up!
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big problem for BB if they were to have open source-licensed tech and got acquired by a megacorp, or a big problem for a "kinda-sorta-licensee" of their tech once acquired?
It was a joke, emphasis on IBM 'Big" stuff...
That was the pun, yes, but my comment was about a real issue.
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
What order of magnitude? There are 60 drive chassis in 4U you can get[0][1], but even a 4TB -> 6TB drive + 15 more drives isn't exactly an order of magnitude. And they have 2 10GiB ports, though I'm sure you can work with them and get more.. It's disingenuous to call this not "state of the art" when it's really quite close, and obviously is meeting a backblaze design goal. [0]: http://www.newisys.com/Products/4600.sh…
A 96 bay 4U chassis is readily available http://www.raidinc.com/products/object-storage/ability-4u-96... but that's still not a magnitude.
Intel Atom is an odd choice, but liking the ethernet choice.
Gonna look more into how they lay the disks out. I wonder what the serviceability of the drives is.
Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yev from Backblaze -> We don't need the boot drive to be that "large", but it's more of a pricing thing. An SSD, even at 256GB would be more expensive than those 5400RPM drives, so we just go with what's cheap :)
Reliability has a cost, too. You can get a 60GB SSD for cheap (Amazon suggests it's about the same price as the slow 500GB HDD), and the SSD will fail at a much lower rate than that HDD.
When you have another 60 HDDs in the same case, I guess you think about reliability differently.