FYI this was unveiled at the 2025 Google Next conference, and they're apparently unveiling a gRPC client for Rapid Storage, which appears to be a very thin wrapper over Colossus itself, as this is just zonal storage.
Did find some interesting recent (March 28th, 2025) reads though!
Colossus under the hood: How we deliver SSD performance at HDD prices https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/storage-data-transfer...
I kind of thought you meant ZNS / https://zonedstorage.io/ at first, or it's more recent better awesomer counterpart Host Directed Placement (HDP). I wish someone would please please advertize support for HDP, sounds like such a free win, tackling so many write amplification issues for so little extra complexity: just say which stream you want to write to, and writes to that stream will go onto the same superblock. Duh, simple, great.
There are a number of zones in a region. Region usually means city. Zone can mean data center. Rarely just means some sort of isolation (separate power / network).
Most instances of a cloud ___ created in a region are allocated and exist at the zonal level (i.e. a specific zone of a region).
A physical "region" usually consists of three or more availability zones, and each zone is physically separated from other zones, limiting the potential for foreseeable disaster events from affecting multiple zones simultaneously. Zones are close enough networking-wise to have high throughput and low latency interconnection, but not as fast as same-rack, same-cluster communications.
Systems requiring high availability (or replication) generally attain this by placing instances (or replicas) in multiple availability zones.
Systems requiring high-availability generally start with multi-zone replication, and Systems with even higher availability requirements may use multi-region replication, which comes at greater cost.
They charge $20/TB/month for basic cloud storage. You can build storage servers for $20/TB flat. If you add 10% for local parity, 15% free space, 5% in spare drives, and $2000/rack/month overhead, then triple everything for redundancy purposes, then over a 3 year period the price of using your own hard drives is $115/TB and google's price is $720. Over 5 years it's $145 versus $1200. And that's before they charge you massive bandwidth fees.
Also, don't forget the hidden cost/risk of giving a third party full access to your data.
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.
For example, I agree that elasticity is great. But at the same time, to me, it sounds like bad engineering. Why do you need to store terabytes of data and then delete it - couldn't it be processed continuously, streamed, compressed, process changes only, and so on. A lot of engineering today is incredibly wasteful. Maybe your data source doesn't care, and just provides you with terabyte csv files, and you have no choice, but for engineers that care about efficiency, it reeks.
It might make a lot of sense in a highly corporate context where everything is hard, nobody cares, and the cost of inefficiency is just passed on to the customer (i.e. often government and tax payers). But the real problem here is that customers aren't demanding more efficiency.
And plenty of use cases have natural growth. I do not throw away my pictures for example.
Data also grows dependent of users. More users, more 'live' data.
We have such a huge advantage with digital, we need to stop thinking its wasteful. Everything we do digital (pictures, finance data, etc.) is so much more energy and space efficient than what we had 20 years ago, we should just not delete data because we feel its wasteful.
* hetzner storage box starts from $4/month for 1TB, and then goes down to $2.4/TB/month if you rent a 10TB box.
* mega starts from €10/month for 2TB, and goes down to €2/TB/month if you get a 16TB plan
* backblaze costs (starts from?) $6/TB/month
I was looking for a cheap cloud storage recently, so have a a list of these numbers :)
Moreover, these are not even the cheapest one. The cheapest one I found had prices starting from $6.5 for 5TB, going down to $0.64/TB/month for plans starting with 25TB (called uloz, but I haven't tested them yet).
Also, looking at lowendbox you can find a VPS in Canada with 2TB storage for $5/month and run whatever you want there.
How all that compares to $20/TB/month?!
Please feel free to correct me if i'm comparing apples to oranges, though. But I can't believe all of these offers are scam or so-called "promotional" offers which cost companies more than you pay for it.
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.
BTW at Hetzner you can rent servers with very large (hundred of TB) non-redundant storage for an effective price of about $1.50/TB/month. If you want to build a cloud storage product, that seems like a good starting point - of course, once you take into account redundancy, spare capacity, and paying yourself, the prices you charge to your customers will end up closer to the price of Backblaze at a minimum.
and thus, market efficiency feels like a myth. This feels most true when it comes to cloud services. They're way overpriced in multiple different common cases at the big providers
NB: I am on the rapid storage team.