Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by e1ven | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

e1ven·

It's also worth looking at their 72 disk, 2.5" version

http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/417/SC417E16-R...

Using that, and 72 1TB 2.5" drives, (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136...)

(($109 * 72) / (72 * 1TB * .75) in dollars per gigabyte) = $.15/Gb

View on HN

It's worth noting at this time, that most SSDs only come in a 2.5" version. (Not for cheap bulk storage but because that's arguable Supermicro's intentions for this chassis.)

No its not intended for SSDs. There is not nearly enough IO bandwidth for SSD to make any sense. 2.5 inch hard drives are what you use if you want disks with spindles not just big storage. Eg for virtualised database servers.

Yeah, basically 2.5" gives you the same space but twice the spindles for twice the price. Probably not worth it for archival storage.

Agreed. It'd be faster, but that's not really what we're looking for- We want to get the cost per GB to be as low as humanly possible, while maintaining at least an illusion of reliability.

So store it all on one of those fake Chinese USB drives. That gives a nice illusion, and is incredibly cheap...

Alternatively we could consider what level of reliability you want and how that will be tested.

In my calculations I was doing elsewhere in the thread, I was assuming 1 drive out of 4 would be for redundancy. There's nothing on these drives that's irreplaceable, and we have system-level redundancy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com