30 posts • joined 7 Sep 2008
Re: Service Life of HD
As far as I can tell, the ceiling on the service life is mechanical. Everything I read, everything I've been able to google. If you have some hidden knowledge that shows otherwise, please share I'm much interested and would have me re-work my presentation B^).. heh. If there were a 7 year warrantied hard drive, the big players would use it in the 1000+ drive frames and perhaps extend their bundled warranties out further and make their long term costs less, ROI better , etc. There are so many reasons a much longer warrantied drive makes sense, but it isn't here yet - if ever. I believe it is a hard physics/mechanical problem. Again Charles 9, if you can show us otherwise, much appreciated.
Re: Service Life of HD
> But note your own words: "other factors being equal".
The only thing I was trying to do there is "apple to apples", in other words a 7200 RPM 2 TB versus the same. 15K 2.5 900 GB SAS versus same, etc. So some twit didn't try to run off in a direction "of what about this and that" which invariably happens.
Re: Service Life of HD
> IOW, they didn't have a good reason to build a seven-year drive.
Well.. this is like the 100 miles per gallon carburetor, it doesn't exist but fun to speculate none-the-less. I'd speculate that if vendor A were to deliver a 7 year warrantied hard drive, they would have captured a large segment of the marketplace (other factors being equal). The reason to go beyond 5 years is there and always has been.
Re: Service Life of HD
Well actually, the service life (or warranty.. how long it is under warranty - take your pick) is 5 years. The reason manufacturers don't go beyond that is they can't. Spinning parts and the failure rate greatly increases. Plenty in the GooglePlex that speaks to this. These guys think that 50% of their drives will still be running in year 6:
"Going forward, we'll want our 3/4/5/6TB drives to last longer. My current server box is running 2TB drives, and most of the drives have 4-5 years of spin time already, with no urgency to replace them any time soon."
Maybe because you don't understand the risk? Everything you have RAID6? Because at some point UBE/URE may bite you in the ass and a RAID5 rebuild will go belly-up.
Service Life of HD
I don't think extending service life of hard drives will happen. It's 5 years for a reason. If someone could do 7 years, they would have and they would have cornered a nice chunk of the market. The problem of course is spinning parts, they only last so long.
Re: large POWER8 servers are out:
You like to trot that article out don't you? It's from 2003. I think I read an article in 1980 that said IBM was killing off mainframes.
"POWER8 is the last POWER generation."
"IBM was showing off a part, has systems of all sizes up and running in its labs using the Power8 chips, and has been designing the Power9 processor for quite a while already, according to Starke."
Say... you aren't perchance a lib are you? Libs tend to make up facts, don't let facts get in the way of a good story, etc.
The hollowing out is well underway
Haven't goggled it, but that wasn't a five year plan perchance? Five year plans don't work out so good. Heh. Problem with some of these larger companies, they lack elasticity. They can't change fast enough and/or they mis-interpret the change around them and head off in a direction and land some place the industry isn't going. High-end monolithic storage arrays on the decline... "hmmm... what does that mean? Where should we be heading?" etc. As Potts quotes Jobs: As the much-venerated Steve Jobs said: "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will." I wouldn't suggest for a second this is easy, some will get it right others will shore up the walls for a time being and speak good wall street babble on earnings calls until it becomes quite clear they have been hollowed out and there is considerable erosion behind the walls. The "two for one" spends that Amazon, Google, FB, MS are employing are having a devastating effect on IBM,HP and other traditional players. Borrowed that last bit from Campbell, here: http://storagemojo.com/2014/10/17/shadow-it-pt-2/
Re: Lot of ignorance from the IBM crowd here
"So you choose, 32-socket POWER7 or 16-socket POWER8 - you will not get better performance by choosing POWER8. So what is the point of POWER8"
In this case, cheaper licensing costs. One reason Power eroded Oracle on Sun hardware over the years is the Power perf was so much better even with the "factor", Sun made a lot less sense to run Oracle. I've been part of a migration , a huge migration from Sun to Power, migrating to a lot fewer cores and saving a bunch on Oracle licensing costs.
Doesn't matter, it goes something like this...
"A table of hardware costs Wikibon has prepared shows that, looking at 10-year cumulative hardware costs, a disk-only archive costs $5.5m while tape-only is far lower at $0.8m."
There's a Dilbert cartoon moment out there somewhere.
"Tape isn't sexy, let's kill tape"
"What's sexy got to do with it, it is a lot cheaper"
"I read in an airline magazine that facebook has a cool archive, we need to do something similar or we won't be cool"
"We don't have budget"
"I'll find the money, I think there are several projects that are a bit fat as it is"
"What will it gain us in the long run?"
"I'll call up me buds and we too will be in an airline magazine, free adverts, plus we will be cool!"
Comcast v. Verizon
Actually... Comcast's greatest fear is when Verizon FIOS hits a neighborhood. I've watched our neighbors one by one switch to Verizon. I can tell collectively we are still with it by the wireless routers available. I got tired of the nickel and dime. I'd call them up to get the discount after my "special" expired, get sent to "retentions" and quite politely mention the great Verizon deal I am staring at, Comcast would do the right thing and give me the "special" pricing. After last go-round , I tired and switched to Verizon with lifetime DVR+triple-play, etc. they don't play the game , after special, my price went up all of 10-15 bucks, no biggie. The in-laws went with Comcast... I spent 3 months and a number of phone calls on their behalf just to get that $200 Visa debit card. You have to fight tooth and nail for those things.
The Overseas cloud is me guess
Where will they come from? Overseas I would bet.
It won't be me. Been courted on several occasions to do storage. Not a chance. The nights and weekend work is enough to kill you. I've watched a few tired wretches do the wrong thing, one unfortunately blew up several hundred VMs ("hmmm... SRDF in this direction.. , wait, no, this direction ... oops"). The stress and demands are not worth it and the smart ones avoid it like the plague.
Re: Public cloud barriers
I wouldn't pretend everything belongs in the cloud. Certainly not with some of the workloads and access you describe. For others, they felt they had no choice. Netflix being the poster child.
http://bit.ly/1gVnxqX "The overriding reason for the Netflix move to a public cloud generally, and to AWS in particular, was that the company could not build data centers fast enough to meet the often-spiky demand of its users and that AWS was the only game in town in terms of the scale that Netflix needed." More details about that here and about - Google is your friend.
But yes, there will be corner cases and situations where it will not be a good fit. But the cloud folks are bending the cost curves down and the bean counters will count the numbers and the dash will begin. I'm not saying the dash is underway - but it will happen. "Then tell me, with a straight face, that the future is to have all workloads in the cloud." Maybe the reasons won't be good, but the numbers folks rule the day in the long run there will be a tipping point, I'll bet you on that and it will become quite apparent.
"The cost in lost profits from downtime" Yes. I often use this example of a cable cut and the havoc that resulted: http://bit.ly/1eCCFJT I expect there will be SMBs that totally moved to the cloud, cables are cut and folks have to work from home for a few days. Yes high profile burps in Amazon, but those are becoming less frequent as they tighten their processes.
Public cloud barriers
I agree with many of these points. Because of latency and bandwidth, all pieces would reside
in the datacenter you are accessing remotely. Trying to do the hybrid thing is very expensive.
Regarding DR, I would hope there would be next gen solutions for that SRM on steroids or something
Thankful SCADA has moved on to Windows
Elsewise, no Stuxnet to slow down a uranium enrichment program.
I recall back-in-the-day at a conference sitting next to folks at lunch and asking about what they all up to. Surprised at the number of consultants that worked at Nuke plants supporting the VMS infrastructure. Of course, I'm sure a lot of that has been ripped and replaced with Windows, with multiple layers of firewalls and VPNs - one would hope (if not air gaps, I have no knowledge nor care to regarding actual setup). If the majority of SCADA was still VMS based, we would have been so screwed ... no way to stuff a virus on it and slow down uranium enrichment programs - that's for sure. Bombs away (a lot sooner than planned - heh)!
Oh for those not good at reading between the lines or interpreting intent, there is quite a bit of snark in this post.
Fits the Narrative
... and makes the nightly news as Brian Williams intones about the cesium plume approaching California. Narrative? Nuclear = Bad. Bald Eagle killing Wind power generation = Good. Oh the ecological gordian knots the greenies twist themselves into.
Re: Are we tilting at windmills....
"This could go a long way to explain the c. 2°C temperature difference between urban and rural areas." That and two other factors. Cities are concrete and asphalt heat islands , secondly temperature recordng stations are often very poorly placed. On roofs or too close to heat sources like parking lots.
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
Long term trends? Sure, how's this work for you?
"And maybe a bit a scientific analysis might be welcome, as well: what part of the physics underlying the concept of radiative forcing do you find issue with?"
What are you talking about? Trot something out. Be specific.
Doing the Warmist shuffle
The problem of course it is a very hard sell (warming) when you are freezing your ass off and you haven't seen this much snow in decades (large portion of US of A). Likewise, Europeans probably remember the winter of 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2012_European_cold_wave
Couple that with a pause or plateau for 17 + years now in temperature rise:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/ toss in lowest ever Antarctic ice melt: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/
And the warmists are suddenly feeling like a politician with numerous scandals without a kiss-up press in their pocket. Oh. that's right, they have a compliant press, still a tough sell, ain't it? Barry was doing a full court warmist press conference from a golf course in Cali, handing out a billion plus for California to fight warming or some such. USA ain't buying it at all as warming polls very poorly here. Press on warmists, it'll be a tough slough.
Yeah.. and I suppose it gets worse. Imagine best laid plans. Google isn't coughing it up but I recall an airline in Minnesota that did the right thing, two separate carriers and then the construction company that cuts through the fibre bundle that is carrying both carriers. Easy prediction: We'll read about a company that went out of business because they were cloudified and the day and a half they were down, the customer abandonment rate was so severe they never recovered. And it will be a cut cable that put them out of business.
"On-premise data centres will also need bulk, online disk storage, with RAID rebuild time a continuing problem"
I keep seeing this... time isn't the issue. Failed rebuild is (obviously). The straw man is an additional
drive failure while rebuild is taking place. That's extremely rare. The problem in a RAID5 rebuild is
a bad block when rebuilding, tits-up at that point. To get around this, RAID6 is the answer for most.
But now we veer off into the more painful write penalty of RAID6, throw a lot of drives at it and the
pain lessens (simplification). MTDL for RAID6 is 110 years (google: intel raid6 paper). Which has
one scratching their head when you read about ZFS triple parity RAID. Still trying to figure out why
triple parity. Finally, SMART tech has most drives undergoing pro-active replacements making RAID5
less of a risk. But RAID5 still scares me. I've seen or heard of too many RAID5 failures on rebuild.
I perseverate - sorry.
I stumbled upon this and thought it rather interesting. Perhaps a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Or a bit of indirection?
Either way, one lift quote I found interesting:
Additionally, the economics of Glacier are not competitive with tape. Glacier's pricing is being promoted it as low as $0.12 per GB per year. The comparative costs for a Spectra T-Finity tape library are $0.0008 (cost per GB per month amortized over 5 years). Add in power, floor space and personnel costs for all 5 years and the total cost should still be well below $0.01 per GB per year for the period.
I'd think if it is close to a $.01 per GB per year, there is plenty of headroom for Amazon (assuming Glacier is tape) to come down in price.
Yes... another Tier
This makes sense. Is the customer for this faster tier real small business and does cloud only backup? What would a larger business use it for, if a deep archive wouldn't Glacier make the most sense? For me, I'm more excited or interested in the decreased costs of Glacier for extended family photo archives and I store important documents just in case my laptop blows up. I would think Glacier is best for "just in case" solutions. Oh... the most important stuff for retrieval is in Gmail accounts. Free is best and I don't mind TLAs trundling through my stuff.
Re: erasure coding. Perhaps nothing is erased. TSM redux.
There were 3 quotes there, not a single quote. In a competitive industry, you often have to rely on somewhat sketchy sources - you would think. But anyhow, come over here for a follow-up comment:
Glacier is based, we understand, on data stored in tape libraries
Let's call it Snowfield for short and predict a cost of $0.0125/GB/month with Glacier potentially dropping to $0.0075/GB/month.
Tape or Disk for Grlacier?
"This is due to the Glacier racks not having enough power provisioned to them to spin up more than about 1/5 of the drives in any given rack"
You sure about that? Reference please!
"Contrary to previous ideas that Amazon's Glacier cloud archival storage uses disk-based object storage, the latest word is that it is based on LTO6 tape. This comes from a nameless but senior person in the IT industry who "cannot talk about it". El Reg has also heard the same from another source in the general IT industry.
This idea of tape being the Glacier store fits in with the longish retrieval time for Amazon Glacier data and the cheap-as-chips cost structure Glacier has."
the latest word from a reliable source reveals that it uses LTO6. This was leaked out by a reliable senior source of Amazon, at the recently held IP Expo.
SpectraLogic is going from strength to strength. It has just been confirmed by a third person "familiar with the situation" that Amazon's Glacier archive service uses SpectraLogic tape libraries, thus enabling its low cost.
Which makes sense. Architecturally, I think they made the right choice with other LTO Gens coming online. I suspect Amazon will punish soon by reducing Glacier's already cheap costs. Using tape as a back-end , they have a lot more headroom to reduce as tape is quite a bit cheaper versus hard drives.
But the problem in general - long term archiving - demands the lowest cost. Retrieval time? Meh. We'll see how EVault does if they stay ~50% more costly than Amazon.
This is sooooo very annoying
Tape is dead.. arrggg my head is exploding. The mainframe is dead too.
Anyhow, how about a real-world counter-point?
Now maybe some kool-aid drinking tape-is-dead fanboi floated the idea at the Chocolate Factory to
replace tape? And then someone else said "Why? And how are we going to justify that? More
importantly, how are we going to justify the greatly increased cost?"
But back to the puzzled tech author of the link above... tape? Seriously? And he prattles on about
how long it takes to restore, how many tapes (LTO2? ummm... how about at least LTO4 - but I digress).
He misses the main point... how much cheaper it is, he writes as if it is more expensive. How silly...
as if The Chocolate Factory hasn't figured out the cost.
Re: all down to $/GB
Always comes down to money.. funny how that works. The tiers are considerably cheaper as you go down on $/GB, if they weren't ... there would be no need for them. I've been in massive shops with VTL and there is always tape in there somewhere. Financially, you'd go broke with multi-PB and keeping all those backups on de-duped HDD. I don't know how many times I've argued, if a tier is a factor of 5 or more in cost cheaper, that tier will be around for quite some time. Especially with database archiving solutions. The stale data resides on a cheaper tier. Makes no sense to keep that on a more expensive tier.
Read up on MTBF
This is a joke, right? Do you even know how MTBF is calculated?
Do some reading chucklehead.
"LaBar and his colleagues report that testosterone levels among women and Democrats in the trial were unaffected"
Shouldn't that be "immeasurable" or perhaps "tiny like their kit"?
Gee whiz... what's with you guys? You get to the Rog and fall in line to talk up Sun?
Is one of the sign-ons to be a sun fanboy?
"The collection of all other vendors grew their total revenue at 38.5 percent, more than twice the market rate. We might possibly assume from that surprisingly high growth rate that vendors such as 3Par, Compellent, Data Domain, and Pillar are making good progress at the expense of all other vendors except Sun and NetApp."
Why not just go and see what fellow writers say? Chuck for instance?
The big market share gainer according to Gartner?
That would be "other" category at 2.3%, meaning more and more of the pie is going to the newer entrants -- collectively, that is. To me, this means that the market still has plenty of room for innovation from smaller vendors.
So there you have it. Those fast growers are now 2.3% of market share. Big whoop.
They certainly aren't eating into the others.
Sun? Irrelevant. Please lay off the Sun koolaid. Their stock tells you all you need to know about how far they've fallen.
- All ABOARD! Furious Facebook bus drivers join Teamsters union
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 4: Spawn of Galaxy Alpha and a Note 3 unveiled
- Webcam hacker pervs in MASS HOME INVASION
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Nexus 7 fandroids tell of salty taste after sucking on Google's Lollipop