Live data from Hacker News

135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

zdnet.com

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#21
post #5

I switched from JungleDisk to Backblaze a year ago and haven't looked back. BB is amazingly fast and painless to use. On top of that the cost is insanely cheap in comparison to using AWS (which Jungle Disk uses).

I am too a very happy switcher from Carbonite to Backblaze. It really is fast, as Valien says. The cost? Well, it has gotten cheaper since the dollah is dying.

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#22
FYI: Protocase (http://www.protocase.com/), the company that will build you the Backblaze case, sent me an email yesterday announcing that they are now selling completed Backblase storage pods without the hard drives for $5395.00. I'm not sure if this is the new design or not but I've set up 3 of these and finding some of the parts (SATA back planes) took weeks of searching and shady dealings.

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the lowest level there are three RAID groups in each pod. Each RAID group is made of 15 drives configured in software RAID 6 with 2 parity drives. This means you can lose 2 dives and the data is entirely safe and intact. If 3 or more drives completely fail simultaneously (not just pop out of the RAID group or power down, but where that drive is lost forever, like it will never power up again) you will lose at leas…

While you are here....Why only a single boot drive? It seems like an obvious failure point, and at only $40 per drive I would think soft raid 1 would be no-brainer for reliability. Regardless though, super impressed by the work into rolling your own hardware, hope you guys continue to do well.

I just asked, and found out we actually HAVE had a number of boot drives fail in our fleet of 200 pods. Most decisions in the pod are around saving money, so our initial thoughts were just that no customer data is on the boot drive so it isn't all that important. But don't get me wrong, there are SO MANY GOOD opportunities to improve the pod, Backblaze just stops working on the pod when it does what is needed for us and we run off to focus on other things. Your call on the boot drive is every bit as valid as ours. :-) I'm staring at an open pod here and I see plenty of good spots to put a second boot drive, and we'll probably be going to a 2.5" form factor (laptop) boot drive sometime soon which would yield even more space.

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#24
post #7

Does anyone know if Backblaze will ever support Linux? I've wanted to use their service for a while now, but their lack of Linux support has being a big turn down, and I don't think they have made any change in their statements regarding this 'issue'.

We would like to, we just haven't had time to get it done yet. It runs internally, but is lacking an installer and a GUI, and we would need to prioritize and choose one or more Linux distributions to launch with. Ubuntu is an obvious choice (we focus more on desktop backup than on servers). But some people also ask for CentOS and a few others. It bums me out the Linux community has not solved binary compatibility any…

I think you probably overestimate how much linux users would care about having a GUI. You should ship what you've got.

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#25
post #13

No ECC?

Yes, the RAM is ECC. Here is a link: http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT25672B... The ECC RAM absolutely does find and corrects problems (we see them in the logs). However, just to be absolutely clear we would not need ECC RAM -> Backblaze checksums EVERYTHING on an end-to-end basis (mostly we use SHA-1). This is so important I cannot stress this highly enough, each and every file and portion of fi…

Huh, didn't know there was an i3 that supported ECC. Cool.

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#26
post #7

Does anyone know if Backblaze will ever support Linux? I've wanted to use their service for a while now, but their lack of Linux support has being a big turn down, and I don't think they have made any change in their statements regarding this 'issue'.

We would like to, we just haven't had time to get it done yet. It runs internally, but is lacking an installer and a GUI, and we would need to prioritize and choose one or more Linux distributions to launch with. Ubuntu is an obvious choice (we focus more on desktop backup than on servers). But some people also ask for CentOS and a few others. It bums me out the Linux community has not solved binary compatibility any…

Any chance of releasing the XML file specs so someone in the community can write an OSS GUI?

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#27
post #4

please submit the actual source next time: http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v...

Excellent article.

Running LVM over raid 6 volumes is the 'standard' approach of many enterprise storage deployments. The 'magic' in a good RAID6 implementation is what it does when things go wrong, and lots of things do go wrong. The checksumming is great too.

At some point you can dump the sheet metal on the 'pods', just build your own rack unit. If you look at the 'big iron' systems from NetApp, EMC, and others you will see they make one big enclosure then can install simpler systems within that enclosure. What this buys you is that you can distribute enclosure services into the big box and take it off the individual boxes. That gives you better cost efficiencies. And as you point out your system can run with fewer fans, so you can put a couple of largish three phase fans in the big enclosure (dead simple and very reliable) and use them to push the air through all the other boxes. (or pull it). Then add an android tablet for the 'door' of the enclosure that tells you drive status, etc and you're practically a player in the storage game :-)

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#28
post #7

Does anyone know if Backblaze will ever support Linux? I've wanted to use their service for a while now, but their lack of Linux support has being a big turn down, and I don't think they have made any change in their statements regarding this 'issue'.

We would like to, we just haven't had time to get it done yet. It runs internally, but is lacking an installer and a GUI, and we would need to prioritize and choose one or more Linux distributions to launch with. Ubuntu is an obvious choice (we focus more on desktop backup than on servers). But some people also ask for CentOS and a few others. It bums me out the Linux community has not solved binary compatibility any…

I don't know how many other folks feel this way, but I would kill for a GUI-less version of your client. I'd love to configure XML files, or some (any!) analog.

I've been looking for an off-site backup solution for a (nerdy and technically competent) home user for years, and yours is the only one that I could afford (poor recent BA here).

Please?! I would pay $10 a month (probably more, really) for that. Even if you don't want to support it, could you do it just for me? It'll be our little secret!

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We would like to, we just haven't had time to get it done yet. It runs internally, but is lacking an installer and a GUI, and we would need to prioritize and choose one or more Linux distributions to launch with. Ubuntu is an obvious choice (we focus more on desktop backup than on servers). But some people also ask for CentOS and a few others. It bums me out the Linux community has not solved binary compatibility any…

I don't know how many other folks feel this way, but I would kill for a GUI-less version of your client. I'd love to configure XML files, or some (any!) analog. I've been looking for an off-site backup solution for a (nerdy and technically competent) home user for years, and yours is the only one that I could afford (poor recent BA here). Please?! I would pay $10 a month (probably more, really) for that. Even if you…

It sounds like those XML files are already there when you install the windows or mac version. Why don't you just open them up and edit them by hand?

Re: 135TB for $7,384 - Backblaze Pod 2.0

#30
post #13

No ECC?

Yes, the RAM is ECC. Here is a link: http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?imodule=CT25672B... The ECC RAM absolutely does find and corrects problems (we see them in the logs). However, just to be absolutely clear we would not need ECC RAM -> Backblaze checksums EVERYTHING on an end-to-end basis (mostly we use SHA-1). This is so important I cannot stress this highly enough, each and every file and portion of fi…

Merkle Trees FTW, but it sounds like you've basically reimplemented ZFS.

Have you tried using ZFS on one of these?

Post reply on HN