111–120 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
? s3: https://aws.amazon.com/pm/serv-s3 s3 express: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/storage-classes/express-one-zone/ cross-region replication: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/replic...
The semantics they are offering are very different from S3. In Colossus a writer can make a durable 1-byte append and other observers are able to reason about the commit point. S3 does not offer this property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank You. So backblaze for $6/TB a month. I could have a TB of Data backed up safely against file corruption? I wonder how have I missed that. Now you could use it with Synology NAS and it is a lot cheaper than doing RAID 5 for ZFS / BTRFS with Muti redundancy. I wonder if there are any NAS that does that automatically? Any drawbacks? Also wonder if the price could go down to $5 / TB in a few years time.
The price of Backblaze WAS $5 a few years ago and they increased it to $6 (and added some free bandwidth).
Is this related at all the the private invite only anywhere caches? (or maybe they're GA now?) https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/anywhere-cache
Anywhere Cache and Rapid Storage share some infrastructure inside of GCS and both are good solutions for improving GCS performance, but Anywhere Cache is an SSD cache in front of the normal buckets while Rapid Storage is a new type of bucket. (I work on Google storage)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I'm looking for a job. Are you willing to pay me serious money to set up CFS as a service on your AWS?
Obviously not, since you could not deliver it. It seems that you maybe don't realize what CFS is in this context, and are thinking of something else that you could just "set up"? What jeffbee is talking about is Google's proprietary Colossus File System, and all its transitive dependencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anywhere Cache and Rapid Storage share some infrastructure inside of GCS and both are good solutions for improving GCS performance, but Anywhere Cache is an SSD cache in front of the normal buckets while Rapid Storage is a new type of bucket. (I work on Google storage)
Can you expand a bit on when it would make sense to use one versus the other?
Rapid Storage will have all of your data local and fast, including writes. It also adds the ability to have fast durable appends, which is something you can't get from the standard buckets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your belief that One Zone implies less expensive, but I’m staunchly in favor of them having it in the name so people know that their data is in a single AZ. The storage class succinctly summarizes faster with lower availability.
Fair, how about instead of S3 Express they call it S3 Max (One Zone). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with good product names, just copy Apple. Though I suppose what happens when engineers are left up to the marketing. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're paying the same for "cloud engineers". Also, don't forget the hidden cost/risk of giving a third party full access to your data.
Clicking yourself a Bucket takes 5 Minutes. Building a Server and keeping it secure and up-to-date and fixing hardware issues, takes relevant time
Cloud is more than bare metal, but plenty of folks discount the cost benefits of elasticity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is S3 Express One Zone performance greatly improved to standard S3 like GCP rapid storage? My understanding is S3 Express One Zone is just more cost effective. > 20x faster random-read data loading than a Cloud Storage regional bucket.
Yes, it’s horribly more expensive… I think you are thinking of one zone infrequent access
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant it sarcastically, but for "serious money" you can have any software system you can dream of. You have to dream of it, though - that's one of the hard parts. It looks like every other clustered file system. What's special about Google's Colossus?
There are some semantic differences compared to POSIX filesystems. A couple big ones: - You can only append to an object, and each object can only have one writer at the time. This is useful for distributed systems - you could have one process adding records to the end of a log, and readers pulling new records from the end. - It's also possible to "finalize" an object, meaning that it can't be appended to any more. (…