171–180 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is not to do it cheaper but better.
... better than AWS with its SLAs, that every major company relies on to some extent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any object storage system (S3, Backblaze B2, Azure Blob, GCP) should be able to handle those file sizes with proper chunking into smaller parts (limit details below per object store). S3: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/mpuoverview.... (Max object size: 5TB, Max single multipart size: 5GB) Backblaze B2: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/docs/large_files.html (Max file size: 10TB, Max single object size: 5G…
Hi, GCS engineer here. The lower limit on composing objects is one source object, in which case you are not so much composing as you are copying with style. Zero source objects is an error. I will file a note about the docs, thanks.
I worked on the design of Dropbox's exabyte-scale storage system, and from that experience I can say that these numbers are all extremely optimistic, even with their "you can do it cheaper if you only target 95% uptime" caveat. Networking is much more expensive, labor is much more expensive, space is much more expensive, depreciation is faster than they say, etc etc. I don't think the authors have ever done any actua…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that AWS has economies of scale that makes it hard to build a better/cheaper S3, but one way you can get around this problem is by building to lesser requirements. S3 has to work for all use cases, but if you know you need less of something costly (say, less IOPs) you can build a system that's cheaper than S3 even if the individual components are more expensive than S3 is paying.
This is actually not correct. Because of AWS scale it cannot be the cheapest. Amazon cannot use odd lots or small lots, which means that it has very few possible suppliers and those suppliers will never be the cheapest. Same goes for the network infrastructure. While it is possible buy 100Gbit/sec at a throw away price to because some sales person needs to make his numbers and neither he nor his director of sales thi…
at a minimum the facility will need some power conditioning and/or insurance. you don't want a brief power surge to eat all of your capital, and lockup fees, in one go. > For a 32 HDD system, you expect about 5 drives to fail per year. This takes time to repair and you will need on-site staff (just not 24/7). To account for these costs, we will budget $50 per year per rig. will you not also lose 6TB (times utilizatio…
Isn't a potential problem with "SATA splitters" also that all disks will share the same channel an therefore end up with worse performance? (Though I guess it won't make a difference for mechanical drives)
FWIW the break out cable they've listed is splitting up a connector that has 4 electrical channels onto 4 physically separate cables, so there's no problem with it. they just don't have anywhere to plug it in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody with more money than you can always undercut you in anything you ever do so why bother ever trying to do anything
The point is not to do it cheaper but better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, GCS engineer here. The lower limit on composing objects is one source object, in which case you are not so much composing as you are copying with style. Zero source objects is an error. I will file a note about the docs, thanks.
Thank you so much! Is there a limit on size of objects besides the 5TB max described in the docs, similar to other object stores where multiparts have lower limits than the total composed object?
You can compose a 4TB object with a 1 byte object, or you can compose 32 150GB objects, just so long as the destination object doesn't go over 5 terabytes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the issue. We know that due to economy of scale and domain experience, AWS will always have the lowest cost (to Amazon) for storage -- whether that's totally-reliable storage, or sorta-reliable. If there was a demand for sorta-reliable, they'd build a sorta-reliable S3 and undercut you. Then, blockchain adds inefficiency. Therefore, it's basically impossible for any blockchain solution to have a lower total co…
Everybody with more money than you can always undercut you in anything you ever do so why bother ever trying to do anything
A good is example are the Apple iPhone screens. If Apple wants a new competing supplier, they have to invest in new competitors.
I work in telecom/datacenter infrastructure and this is fanciful. The whole way they take the wattage load of one machine and then hand wave away all of the rest of the costs of either building and running a datacenter, or paying ongoing monthly colocation costs... Is just scary. I truly don't mean to offend anyone but this looks like a bunch of enthusiastic dilettantes. Generators? UPS? Cooling costs? Square footage…