181–190 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason for we say 1000 km instead of 1 Mm, or Sun to Earth 150 M km instead of 150 Gm. Some units are usual in some contexts, some are not. In one word, habits.
Not to mention the most unloved metric prefixes, deci and Deca. When have you ever heard someone use those?
Own your data or quit gripping when this happens. On my phone I keep all my personal stuff in git with the remote set to my desktop (it has a public IP) over ssh. My photo stream is just rsynced occasionally over ssh. Not having to deal with this is arguably even more convenient provided your OS vendor doesn't intentionally get in the way.
Also, I would suggest not port forwarding ssh directly to an internal machine. Use a VPN and then ssh.
Wow! It's amazing that with so much data yet Apple still finds it cheaper to store on public clouds instead of building its own storage.
There’s long lead times for data center level expansion.
A bit fascinated how 8M terabyte looks like in a data centre How much physical space is needed for that?
1 million 8TB hard drives. you can probably put at least 100 of them in the single rack, which means 10.000 racks, put in 100x100 grid that means a single 300mx300m factory hall. Treat that as an upper bound, probably it is possible to package the drives more tightly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason for we say 1000 km instead of 1 Mm, or Sun to Earth 150 M km instead of 150 Gm. Some units are usual in some contexts, some are not. In one word, habits.
Not to mention the most unloved metric prefixes, deci and Deca. When have you ever heard someone use those?
How much would you pay to store such amount data? 8TB hard drive is about 200 dollars nowadays, so this amount of data is about 200m dollars worthy of retail hard drives. Ofc the calculation is super inaccurate, which doesn't take redundancies into consideration, and discounted prices for someone like Google to purchase hardware, plus the discount for Apple as a big customer. But had the scale be comparable, in which…
At that scale its less about sourcing the hardrives (yes its a problem, but now youre a big customer so you can ask for specialised things, and a 50% discount)
The big problem is the hosting, finding and building a number of datacentres local to where your customers are. Powering them, and connecting in a reliable way.
But even more, you need to make a storage interface that doesn't suck. I am currently working with a homegrown S3 "like" interface. It is a massive pain in the arse as it doesn't scale[1], has an entirely new set of words to describe standard things (trying to overwrite a file? it doesn't tell you that, it just says "predicate failed")
[1] large files transfer very fast, faster than s3. However all the tools are written single threaded. Add to this that each operation takes at least .7-1.5 seconds, shit gets slow very quickly. There is little to no documentation, the API is odd.
in short, much as it annoys me to say this: for general purpose storage, buy over build.
I can't tell why this is on the front page of HN. Is the implication that Google would spy on Apple customer's data stored on Google Cloud? Google is evil/dumb/both at times but that's completely outlandish. I do find it interesting that Apple could be one of Google's biggest Cloud clients though, that's very surprising.
I'm amazed any HN readers could believe Google would want to know what is stored if they could actually read it. That is completely useless to them. What is interesting and useful is who is connecting from where, when, with what. Yet again it feels like Snowden is forgotten. Metadata is what matters in high volume data, not content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just $300m. It's $300 for storage. I'm sure they spend more on the GCP platform. They also use AWS, which is over $350m a year. That contract ends in a year or two. Afaik, they don't run on azure anymore. It's not hard to believe they're spending $1B+ on external cloud partners. At $57B net revenue ($274B), a high margin space such as the cloud services could make sense. Although if they're not selling it to…
>Afaik, they don't run on azure anymore. why?