Seagate Introduces a 60TB SSD – Is a 3.6PB Storage Pod Next?
backblaze.com
backblaze.com
- 15 tb from samsung
- 32 tb from huawei
- 48 tb from lenovo
- 64 tb from someone in 3.5" form (edit: was the seagates in the article)
I'm looking forward to putting about a hundred terabytes of SSD into my tiny little 2.5" 4 bay Synology NAS in a few years. The M.2 version will be nuts - https://www.qnap.com/en/product/model.php?II=222
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/toshiba_100tb_qlc_ss...
Found at the bottom of the backblaze article.
I'm willing to bet in 3-5 years you'll be putting in 12-16TB SSDs at around that price point.
I honestly don't think you'll be buying those 60TB SSDs for ~8 years at a reasonable pricepoint because that seems to be how long past "high end" dense SSD drives took to come down to a reasonable price.
EVERYTHING can be marketing materials if you try hard enough :D
You guys have the chassis manufacturing experience (your article on one of the pod designs had FEA simulations IIRC, so I'm thinking you have at least one engineer with graduate level expertise in fluid dynamics), presumably enough direct contact with vendors to source whatever you need to get upstream distribution (who do you guys use for your white label racks?), at least a few customers who have the budget and need for a solution like that, and I'd imagine you have at least one EE on your team with design experience to cobble together what you need.
Either way, you guys have a great blog. Always a great read, keep it up!
We didn't want to be in the hardware market. We outsource all of our "builds" to companies that are willing to bend the metal and assemble most of the pods for us. You can buy the pods directly from them as well (like from backuppods.com or 45drives.com). Backblaze was started by software people who were forced to look at hardware to solve a price-to-density problem.
Which is a really long way of saying - we don't want to sell hardware, if folks want to back up or store their data with us, that's awesome - but if they want hardware and support for that hardware - there's folks out there that are more in to that sort of thing :)
When we switched from Amazon S3 to b2, we lost the ability to do signed requests: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentic...
Our iOS app uploads photos, and we (used to) sign each one and then upload directly from the phone to S3. With b2, we currently have to proxy between the phone and b2 because it doesn't support signatures. It's not a huge deal (we're using $5/month Digital Ocean instances), but it'd be nice to have support in b2 for the same thing.
Best, Erich (happy b2 customer)
[synonyms: funny, humorous, amusing, comic, comical, mirthful, chucklesome, hilarious, rollicking]
I wonder where this other "droll" usage comes from, drone + dull?
While the SSD cost in our setup is more expensive than spinning media IBM is pushing it and the price has dropped immensely since first availability. The second bonus we have is we have systems at COLOs which charge both for power, cooling, and rack space. Needless to say those all come down and since our processing heavily batch oriented with strong web based activity the SSD systems will certainly boost performance and provide a good two to three year buffer.
Fortunately Toshiba and Seagate are moving the density so fast that by next upgrade the prices should be amazingly different (we are 60tb, but mirrored meaning 120tb). Now I am curious if our AIX side will have fun here as they should make for easier flash copies that would be faster too.
I guess my real concern is, that is a lot of data to lose to one device failure. So raid/mirroring is so much more important.
Yev from Backblaze here -> Yea, we raid across different pods w/ Reed Solomon (https://www.backblaze.com/blog/reed-solomon/). With these that would be very costly, but the benefit for us is that an entire pod or two can go down and it's still OK.
Edit: simple math HD stream 10mbps (1MB/s) 24hrs = 86.4GB,that is nearly 2 years of uninterrupted coverage on 1 drive in HD.
When NetApp was successfully selling their Nearstore line (SATA drive based filers) and replacing StorageTek robot tape libraries in surveillance installs the winning factor was "time to time-code" or specifically when someone said "We'd like to see what happened on this day, at this time, on this camera, how long will that take?" And generally it was many many minutes, and while they were doing that nobody else was looking at any other times/cameras.
With a lot of disks online, the footage could be called up quickly, and multiple analysts could be looking at different times/feeds at the same time. As a result it was the cost of Analyst time, not the cost of media, that dominated the "value" of the surveillance storage device.
100TB / 1GB/s = 27 hours to completely write the disk.
That that's at MAX write speed, you could easily have a raid rebuild time of well over a week. A week were performance is suffering, and you are praying that more drives don't fail.
Im currently using about 3tb of HDDs and looking to expand. HDD seems obsolete (for buying something Im trying to future proof with, also, drive spinning accounts for a large portion of noise in my computer) and SSD prices arent there yet. Hopefully these insanely huge advances push the lower end up.
My new one has the little rubber gaskets on the mounting screws, but the drive is mounted against a mounting sleeve (?) sort of thing. I pull a little adapter out of the HDD cage, mount the drive into that (with the rubber gaskets) and then put the adapter back into the cage. I think the noise is the adapter on cage rattle.
It doesnt happen that often (so i think it is only 1 drive doing it), so I havent bothered to look into it. But with moving parts youll always have SOME noise.
Those are $1499 retail.
It'll then be rebranded by HP and Dell for enterprise and sold for $35,000 or so for supported server builds.
Yeah, we're not getting this level of storage anytime soon.
50TB Array would be 10-hard drives. Assuming 15W per hard drive (that's a significant overestimate btw), that'd be 150W if all the hard drives were actually being used.
Otherwise, Hard Drives typically shut off or "spin down" into some sort of sleep cycle for negligable amounts of power.
Sooooo yeah. Assuming the 150W were constant, it'd take something like 50 years for 150W of draw to cost anywhere near $7000.
And I'm grossly overestimating electricity costs here. Again, hard drives sleep and spin down.
Unless your budget was almost unlimited, you'd probably run out of money to buy enterprise class M.2 SSDs before you ran out of physical space to put them.
M.2 x4 - https://www.qnap.com/en/product/model.php?II=222
25 x 165 x 230mm
184 x 168 x 230mmhttp://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experim...
Capacity was the last frontier in terms of benefit of HDD over SSD and it looks like that is being squashed too.
(Edit: Cost per GB is still going for HDD, but that is probably on the horizon too).
Solid disk drive? Hmmm best of both worlds!
So the best answer is, "Who knows? Probably not for a few years, at least." We'll continue to see hybrid fleets for a while yet.
Maybe, in the meantime, the SSDs will be cheap enough that you don't need something cheaper.
That's 6.85 years of 24/7.
Primarily yes - though we just added a new service for cloud-object storage called B2 and that's taking off quite a bit as well (but that's only been out of beta since late-June). Mostly the backup service.
That's 5,000tb a month. Let's assume you average user backs up 500gb, that's 10,000 users a month @ $5/user
Are you adding storage because of new users, or increasing storage needs of your existing users? 100,000 users needing an extra 50gb each would require 5,000tb of increased storage.
Both - As digital imaging and video have become more prevalent, our users are starting to hold a lot more data - but along with that we're constantly adding a bunch of customers as well - so it's a bit of both!
Oh wait. It's also in your username?