Live data from Hacker News

Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

backblaze.com

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#141
post #67
post #49

Earlier 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.

A couple years ago I found out Google was already using 8TB+ drives in production before they hit the wide retail drive distribution market, so I would reckon that many companies with deep pockets and inside vendor relationships would be able to get access to some very high density disks that folks like Backblaze may not be able to get yet. There's also possibilities for better density through solid state that may not make much sense from a raw $ / GB storage basis that drives Backblaze while tiered storage may be essential for how Dropbox operates. Also, I imagine it'd be possible to centralize and strengthen cooling while shoving a bunch of disks into a 4U box to increase raw drive density. For example, you could use a variant of peltier cooling to have drives chilled together off a single metal plate, then repeat a few times in a chassis.

So in short, I can think of improvements but most would come at the cost of higher capex to do so, and that could negatively impact the $ / GB numbers that Backblaze is trying to keep down. Perhaps there's not much consideration for leasing datacenter real estate or power costs or something into the equations but without some reliable numbers it's all speculation to me.

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#142
post #31

Worth 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…

> Worth pointing out (for those of you not in the storage game) that these appliances, while cool, are pretty far from state of the art. So basically you decided to go into this thread, post something that isn't possible for anyone here to corroborate and call the original post "far from state of the art"...to what end? What was the purpose of your posting? Just to toot your own horn? I don't get it. If you want to t…

I don't work at Dropbox, but I do work in storage. I've seen similar systems pack ~250-500TB into a 4U box. 60 drives x 6TB drives = 360TB. Not sure how you would get anywhere over 1000TB with today's spinning drives. There is a vendor linked in Backblaze blog post (45drives) which sells 60 drive enclosures, which they somehow list at 480TB but I'm not sure how the math works out there. However, keep in mind that usable capacity is going to be less. Erasure coding has significantly less overhead than traditional raid, but there is still a cost (depends on chosen protection set).

http://www.45drives.com/products/storage/xl60.php

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#143
These posts set the standard for how hardware info should be communicated. Not only the specs with elaborate detail and supporting images, the costs broken down, and the rationale with explanations of what worked and what didn't. Great stuff!

[edit: spelling]

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#144
post #113
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 compla…

> You merely state that it's just not state of the art, and to come work at dropbox. That's about all I can do. However... > This is what I mean by being disingenuous. I'm don't think disingenuous is what I'm being. Maybe I'm not being as forthcoming as you'd like. Maybe my comment wasn't useful without details I'm not providing. But I'm not lying or misrepresenting anything. So let me try to be helpful without using…

Interesting and thanks for the enlightening comments. I proposed similar things to a few people esp the partnership with hardware development, working around faulty (cheap) stuff, custom firmware, and kernel I/O modifications. I expected each of these in a high-end solution.

My architecture didn't have an IP stack at all: guards or front-end acted as I.P. gateway while internally using much simpler protocol that still worked on Ethernet. Inspired by Active Messages and FLIR protocols of past. TCP/UDP/IP is unnecessarily complicated with simpler message passing easy in software and FPGA hardware for offloading onto cheap FPGA's. A side note was using one or more I/O coprocessors like mainframe Channel I/O (see Wikipedia) to get huge throughput might be cost-effective depending on hardware selected. Esp if using embedded SOC for I/O offloading.

Note: Octeon II's can do many Gbps of line-rate processing for three digits and much simpler internally than a lot of stuff.

The SASD project for secure, hard disks also suggested putting logic in the HD or SATA controllers rather than the system. Made me wonder about putting I/O mgmt and most storage logic in custom PCI cards with lots of SATA connectors. Basically, embedded systems enough CPU to manage whatever you throw at them, just running what's good for that layer, and less watts/money than whole servers. Seems like at some point one could port that layer to straight hardware for great performance/watt although high, initial NRE. eASIC can do that relatively cheap, though, with the Nextreme's if a design is FPGA-proven.

That was just exploration on paper so I'm not sure how practical it would be. My focus was high security systems and storage which necessitate better isolation. Hence, PCI cards rather than servers. Interesting that there was a lot of overlap, though, between what I thought made sense and what you all ended up doing. Very interesting. Guess I'll keep proven tactics in mind in future designs.

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#145
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, there are 3 different things: * Backblaze Online Backup - $5/month unlimited backup for Mac/Win; automatically does client-side-encryption * Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage - $0.005/GB/mo for object storage (lower cost than Glacier, but we don't yet offer a client, though others are building) * Backblaze Storage Pod - the hardware that underlies both of these, which we also open source for anyone to use…

> automatically does client-side-encryption But server-side decryption :( I have been looking into Backblaze every time it was mentioned on a podcast, and as far as I can tell you still cannot download your backup and then decrypt it on your own machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_backup_se... Such a pity. I'm still stuck with CrashPlan (yuck!) for this one reason. I've been evaluating Arq, bu…

good to know, seafile-like client-side encryption/decryption is key indeed. hope backblaze can do that one day.

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#146
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok I will email my attorney that "Some guy named atYevP on HN told me it was okay." ;)

Sounds legit to me...

I think you are missing the point. What you say here (in HN comments) doesn't matter at all. You should fix the license accordingly - or not, if this suits you better.

I agree with the parent though, if I were in busines and wanted to use your drawings, I wouldn't touch them with such a license. Even as a personal hobby project I would bug you for (official & written) permission before using any of the diagrams.

Other than that, it is nice reading about the technical decisions that go into building such racks. Kudos for sharing the knowledge!

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#147
post #113
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 compla…

> You merely state that it's just not state of the art, and to come work at dropbox. That's about all I can do. However... > This is what I mean by being disingenuous. I'm don't think disingenuous is what I'm being. Maybe I'm not being as forthcoming as you'd like. Maybe my comment wasn't useful without details I'm not providing. But I'm not lying or misrepresenting anything. So let me try to be helpful without using…

I, for one, believe what you are saying. There have been murmurs for several years that big outfits like Dropbox/Amazon/Google have moved to use some very fancy storage tech.

Just to ponder on the available confirmed info - lets add Samsungs 16TB SSD to a 48 disk 1U rack and times that by 4...

I'd say just with a lot of cash and stuff you can buy now you can pass that order of magnitude pretty easily. If you make your own...I can easily see the densities knocking Blackblaze's pod out of the water.

As for costs, well massive ordering, preferred rates, custom designs and symbiotic relationships with manufacturers, coupled with a software architecture that complements all these hardware gains could conceivably bring costs down to levels unheard of outside of the big cloud service providers.

The conditions and technology available right now make what you are saying within the realms of the 'adjacent possible' if you have enough money to throw at the problem. With the kind of clout Dropbox et al have I can well believe you're getting incredible storage densities but at incredible knock down prices.

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#149
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, there are 3 different things: * Backblaze Online Backup - $5/month unlimited backup for Mac/Win; automatically does client-side-encryption * Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage - $0.005/GB/mo for object storage (lower cost than Glacier, but we don't yet offer a client, though others are building) * Backblaze Storage Pod - the hardware that underlies both of these, which we also open source for anyone to use…

> automatically does client-side-encryption But server-side decryption :( I have been looking into Backblaze every time it was mentioned on a podcast, and as far as I can tell you still cannot download your backup and then decrypt it on your own machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_backup_se... Such a pity. I'm still stuck with CrashPlan (yuck!) for this one reason. I've been evaluating Arq, bu…

looks like crashplan does support client-side encryption? is that true? does it require a local mirror disk/folder like dropbox does?

I'm really more interested in a long-term backup storage instead of a folder-sync storage, cold storage is fine but glacier seems a little hard to use and retrieval is expensive.

Re: Backblaze Storage Pod 5.0

#150
Naive question: wouldn't it be possible with SSD drives (which are mainly just chips, right?) to make the drives as boards and put them in 1U / 2U / 4U chassis? I mean, who need the HDD dimensions when you are fitting the drives inside server units anyway?
Post reply on HN