But why?
>(as of this writing, VZ was pricing 50Mbps commited @ $455/mo; 100Mbps @ $661/mo; 1Gbps @ $999/mo; 5Gbps @ $2,099/mo; and 10Gbps @ $3,099/mo).
Ten gigabit is not yet a common residential internet service in North America. If that's what you want, this would be the only way to get it.
I've occasionally daydreamed about buying a condominium near one of the Seattle Internet Exchange's PoPs, buying a 400 gigabit port, paying to run a fiber pair, arranging for transit, etc etc. https://www.seattleix.net/join As expensive and pointless as buying a yacht, but at least getting it online would require a lot of tedious work!
(Like OP, I also jumped through the hoops for a Comcast fiber drop years ago (but to a business location) for the same eyewatering price but dramatically fewer megabits per second. The only upside is that the pair traveled directly to a CO in the same office park, so we would routinely see 1-2ms pings to anycast IPs like 4.2.2.2, 8.8.8.8, etc)
10Gbps PON is available from AT&T Fiber in some markets, and lower tiers (5Gbps) are coming online from Google Fiber in other markets. In SoCal, I've seen billboards for 10Gbps AT&T Fiber, for example. Obviously you don't get an SLA with a residential connection, though, and I highly doubt that many customers operating at full capacity will be problem-free.
For what it's worth, this isn't the same as what the person who wrote the post did. They bought a DIA circuit to an ISP.
What you're seeking is a point-to-point fiber link or MPLS to a panel in KOMO Plaza or the Westin building. You don't need to be near either of those locations to do it and CenturyLink (Lumen, these days) will sell you the circuit but you're not going to like what it costs. We have three of these circuits where I work and they are juuuuust a bit higher than what the article's author says they're paying for the DIA.
(This, along with the eyewatering cross-connect fees that the operators of those two facilities charge, is why getting a SIX port is so expensive on retail colo. You're either paying for the privilege of running some strands of glass or you're paying to use someone's extension switch and the connection they're paying for to get back to the SIX core.)
Given I have equipment already in the datacenter, it's pretty tempting to pull the trigger on a 100G link. I just have no idea what I'd do with it.
Completely agreed. Seattle and Portland seem to be high on the list of "places telcos think they can take complete advantage of." For what my employer pays for two (locked) racks of colocation here, we could get an entire small suite somewhere like LA or Chicago.
Wireline costs are similarly sky high, I think because CenturyLink has all of the cabling and no one has bothered to dig up the streets to run any more. When we connected a building in Eastlake to our old colo in Tukwila, CenturyLink was the only one who would quote us.
Those are the pings I see on my residential connection, though?
You get proper service: no random dropouts, and a clueful human on the phone and you could complain about QoS and they'd not laugh in your face.
The different thing here is that the service was provided to a residential building, but that's not entirely unheard of. I've done it myself for example.
If I was filthy rich (which I’m not and probably never will be), I’d build a data centre in my mansion and buy a brand new IBM mainframe and stick it in there. Because I can. For the same reason other rich people build some huge garage with dozens of cars in it.
Mainstream platforms have what IBM calls FBA (Fixed Block Array) disks, in which the disk is an array of sectors which all have the same size. While the IBM mainframe hardware supports that, most IBM mainframe operating systems don't support those, however; Linux and VSEn are the exceptions, and z/VM is a partial exception.
As well as FBA, IBM has ECKD (Extended Count Key Data) disks, like the IBM 3390 was. (ECKD was preceded by CKD, which is conceptually the same – the same sector format, etc – but had a less efficient command set.) With ECKD, sectors can have variable sizes – each disk track can have different sized sectors, you can even mix different sector sizes within the same disk track. Also, sectors optionally have keys, and the disk has commands to search for sectors based on their keys. Originally, these variable sized sectors actually physically existed on disk; nowadays, the SAN only has standard hard disks (or SSDs), but ECKD disks are emulated in the SAN software on top of them. z/OS, the most popular IBM mainframe OS, only supports ECKD disks, not FBA ones. Linux and VSEn support both ECKD and FBA. For ECKD disks, you can't use the standard SCSI command set, you have to use IBM's DASD command set.
Many high-end enterprise arrays do support ECKD and FICON, but you usually have to pay significant extra license fees to enable the software that supports that.
In this particular case, there is no contemporary technological advantage of ECKD over standard hard disks/SSDs - it is simply a matter of legacy backward compatibility, lock-in, and an attempt to financially sustain the mainframe storage ecosystem. The idea of variable sector sizes may have had some real advantages when it was invented back in the 1960s, but nowadays it is just adding unnecessary complexity for no real benefit.
Even the idea of having the hard disk do key searches is something IBM has been moving away from, because doing them in software on the CPU turned out to be much faster in practice. It is still required because the primary traditional mainframe filesystem (VTOC) is based on it, but in areas where performance is critical (such as databases) IBM now positions it as a legacy technology.
Maybe there's still some value in moving key searches into the storage layer, but if there is, it would have to be something much more advanced than the rather simplistic 1960s implementation that ECKD storage provides. Oracle came up with a conceptually similar idea much more recently, Oracle Exadata (released 2008), in which some aspects of database query execution are delegated to the storage–especially table scans. ECKD only supports very basic comparison operations on the key field; Exadata, from what I understand (I used to work for Oracle, but not in this area) can evaluate complex predicates over the whole database row.
Samsung has a SmartSSD with a FPGA on it to offload compute to the drives.
https://phisonblog.com/why-is-computational-storage-inevitab...
They mention at the top because they didn't want to colocate it. So I imagine they did it because they could?
In the event that there are issues at the primary location, internet routing protocols will re-route the relevant network prefixes to the secondary location.
The public /24 that was previously routed to their NYC datacenter now goes to that Connecticut house.