* Posts by disk iops

21 posts • joined 14 Nov 2013

Amazon squares up to Walmart over boycott calls: Talk sh!t, get hit

disk iops

nothing new

this was SOP 2 years ago and probably before that. We hosted all kinds of websites on AWS but had to write a compatibility module just so the Walmart websites could be deployed on Rackspace.

EC2 statistics aren't interesting. S3 and CloudFront stats are where the useful analytics are housed.

Amazon Retail is a separate business unit. As is the entirety of the Virginia datacenter footprint and staff - it doesn't even have 'Amazon' in the company name.

I worked for a company that contracted with the Coke distributor to supply free drinks to the staff as a corp benefit. There was a "secret" Pepsi fridge and there was hell to pay if folks grabbed a Pepsi from the other floor and left it in the Cola fridge.

1
0

Google chips at Amazon's Glacier with Cloud Storage Nearline

disk iops

> If one of these guys is using tape

no one with half a brain cell uses tape for cloud purposes.

> surely any reasonable sized user is encrypting everything they put there, aren't they?

baw haw ha ha ha! oh my. ha ha hahahahha

> Or in other words, you can buy two drives a year for the price of same amount of Galcier storage!

But you're forgetting that Glacier/Google are using erasure coding. So to do an equivalent you need at least a Raid6 but more like a zVol with 5 parity disks, active scrubbing and integrity checks. So let's say you have to build a ZFS server with enough disks and power it up every month and run a full check of all files each time.

No, Glacier et. al. are not cheap. But it's probably cheaper than you doing it yourself or if not that, at least better done than what your average joe could hope to do.

0
0

Seagate's LSI flash biz buyout: Good potential, but only if followed up

disk iops

naive author

apparently doesn't know that every Netapp FAS, IBM DS, EMC SAN head, DataDirect enclosures (and many others) all come from Xyratex? Seagate's drives face an uphill battle simply because their product has a seriously bad reliability history. Sure the 10k/15k SAS line hasn't been bad but NOBODY will touch a Seagate SATA drive even if was made in Taiwan instead the utter, unmitigated shite that their Chinese facilities produce.

0
0

T-Mobile boss: 'High and mighty' Verizon and AT&T are 'raping you for every penny you have'

disk iops

He should have said "the duopoly has bought the entire USG, lock, stock, and barrel and your so-called representatives HATE you and will do anything to deny you lower prices and actual competition." Verizon and ATT are only the way they are because they have (cheaply acquired no less) legal cover.

7
0

Code Spaces goes titsup FOREVER after attacker NUKES its Amazon-hosted data

disk iops

S3 is lazy delete. Just because you delete stuff in the console does NOT mean it's actually gone. You have ~3+ days to get it back. EBS snapshots are stored in S3 AFAIK. The first and gravest mistake (aside from using cloud services in a sloppy manner in the first place) was to not IMMEDIATELY call AWS support and get the account administratively locked. They handle loss of account control routinely.

0
0

Oh THOSE products, says Dell. Sure we'll sell them if you ask

disk iops

it's all ODM stuff

the 60 drive 3460 is probably a re-badge'd Xyratex which in turn is likely to be sold by the parent ODM as a DataDirect, Data-ON or any number of others.

0
0

Panasas: Avoid lengthy RAID re-builds - use our dodgy-file tart-up tech

disk iops

article's "Raid6+" is probably wrong

a recent academic paper (FAST '13) cited a Fast '08 paper by Welch, Abbasi, Gibson et. al. explained that Panasas used 12+4+2 erasure coding or was it 14+2+2. (pyramid codes). Likewise ;login of 12/2013 by James Plank (highly recommend reading it). In any event, nobody who wants to stay sane uses RAID. It's all erasure coding all the time. Each object is independent coded when saved. Each hard disk is just that, a simple hard disk.

0
0

Facebook, are you listening? Fusion-io chucks 6.4TB 'Atomic' flash kit at world

disk iops

re: Full height - oh!

1U and 2U servers can take 2-5 full height cards. what kind of PoS are you buying?

0
0

We present to you: 840 fine, upstanding young disks stuffed into a rack cabinet – DDN

disk iops

while I also question the utility of such a heavy enclosure, any moron knows you don't design for SATA but rather SAS. personally I would have put a fan bank in the middle as opposed to relying exclusively on the ones at the back but the ODMs who build this stuff (DDN is just an OEM) have these nifty things called temperature probes and IR guns.

Horizontal drive placement is HORRIBLE for space usage and cabling but more importantly air-flow.

Nobody is going to be replacing drives in these very often. If you're not using 3x replication or erasure coding you're a world class idiot.

0
0

Netflix coughs up to cruise on Comcast

disk iops

Re: Next Up: The Verizon Protection Racket

I'm sure every last-mile operator is salivating at having their cake and eating it too (charging both the provider AND the customer for the same bits). But the telco has to put in faster circuits and more expensive equipment in your neighborhood so those HD streams actually get to you. That costs a LOT more than the gear needed to service the "usual and customary" traffic pattern your neighborhood PoP exhibits the other 20 hours of the day...

Is there greed in abundance? You bet!

0
0
disk iops

Re: It's all about balance of payments

> By the way, the top tier, 100Mbit symmetric without caps costs under $30/mo where I live

And when everyone in your building decides to all do even just 20Mb/sec all at the same time? The PoP equipment will choke. Your building probably only has 1Gb of back-haul if that. They say you can have 100Mb, sure, but they have ample reason to believe there aren't 10 of you in the building at the same time.

0
0
disk iops

Re: It's all about balance of payments

huh? since when am I an executive/corporate shill? Your Netflix BW is massively subsidized by all the other idiots who pay thru the nose for their Comcast service but don't actually use it. Uni-cast video is the stupidest idea possible.

If a substantive percentage of Comcast customers could switch in a heartbeat to another last-mile operator because Comcast was a greedy SOB and was deliberately not upgrading the peering points (or paying the likes of Level3 the amount demanded) to handle the severely lop-sided traffic flows, then yes, Comcast would magically discover they could afford to do so. Admittedly they have maximum incentive to screw over their own customers and especially where it concerns services that compete with their own. I fully support regulatory prohibition between last-mile and content ownership.

Problem with upgrading the peering points for the 4 hours/day that they get slammed to kingdom come, is that it makes no economic sense in the aggregate when it sits effectively 'idle' the other 20 hours a day. No rational CIO would go along with such a proposal on their own corporate circuits (unless the economic activity during the time period covered the costs) so why on earth do people expect Comcast to do it? eg. your steady-state is 100Mb/s burstable to 1Gb and you are on 95% billing. If you exceed the imputed 'cap' you get hit with fees as you should. Does that necessarily mean you can justify an upgrade to 5Gb:20Gb/s because for a couple hours your get a lot of traffic?

So let's work with the 1cent/GB figure even though you don't cite any evidence in support thereof. Is that what it costs Comcast to deliver from one end of it's network to the other? It is capex, physical plant, power, and people? Or is it gross expenses divided by the number of GB moved in the same time period across all network points?

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28152226-HSI-Size-of-typical-NetFlix-movie

So at 2.2GB/hr that means I should be able to get 410 hrs of content/mo which obviously nobody uses. I'd be very surprised if average was more than 30-40GB/mo. For $9/mo Netflix has to pay their people, pay the filthy-greedy content owners, pay all their transit providers, pay to co-lo at strategic network hops, pay for a zillion hard drives and servers, pay legacy CDN services (all gone?), and pay for object storage, etc. all of whom have to make a profit in their own right.

So while maybe the average Netflix user costs Comcast 30-50 cents a month (from a simplistic viewpoint), and let's suppose that Netflix pays their network provider the same amount, what does it cost Comcast to run a 100Gb/s WDM interconnect and backhaul those same ~20,800 streams of 4.8Mbit/sec (2.2GB/hr) to the customer during prime time? I expect it'll be a whole lot more than 1cent/GB. Is it 10x?

The US market is anything but. The subsidies are rife and the margins likely obscene. But someone has to pay the piper be it Netflix or the Comcast customer using Netflix. Comcast is under no obligation to eat the costs of "acceptable unicast-HD streaming performance" out of the goodness of their hearts. Did your residential contract come with QoS terms and maximum allowable bandwidth limits during peak times? Hell, did they even provide minimally guaranteed bandwidth figures? Or just "best effort" clauses? That doesn't mean Netflix shouldn't be spending their money with Comcast to get their distribution servers placed appropriately so that the customer experience is not unnecessarily dependent on the quality of interconnection points.

Netflix is a zero. They need to charge a hell of a lot more to stay in business once they are forced to pay last-mile and other intermediaries what providing their service truly costs. And when they do, their user-base will evaporate like a morning mist. Or they could stop being dumb and drop streaming entirely since nobody lacks the storage needed to spool it to disk ala a DVR, and so what if you can't watch something "right damn now"? Should have planned ahead. It might be interesting if they wrote their client to use Bit-Torrent style cooperation.

0
0
disk iops

Re: It's all about balance of payments

> the ISP's eyeballs always pay and once they've paid they get to see whatever they want

Yes, but there are NO QoS guarantees whatsoever - QED your Netflix stream is crap because every other tom, dick, and harry (your neighbors) is trying to stream Netflix at the same damn time. In order for all of 'you' to enjoy HD streaming and quit yer bitchin' Comcast would have to significantly upgrade their interconnection points with the Tier-1(s) that are carrying the Netflix source. (Netflix doesn't run their own network to enable them to do 'peering'.) Admittedly Level3 has their own CDN business so Netflix could utilize that but that just moves the origin closer to the Inter-Exchange but not to the OTHER SIDE of it.

There is only one answer and it's Netflix content servers sitting in all key points in Comcast's network. Akamai pays to put their servers in Comcast facilities. Granted, their footprint is tiny compared to a content distribution point, and they don't get charged "screw you" pricing.

I do agree that last-mile carriers should be prohibited from owning Content assets of any kind. Otherwise, as someone else posted, there is HUGE temptation to screw with their competitors and erect barriers to entry; both real and imagined. The FCC et. al. should enforce complete separation.

2
0
disk iops

It's all about balance of payments

The tier-1 carriers generally don't charge each other or the 2nd tiers as long as the traffic crossing the interconnect points is roughly equal. Netflix uses L3 as one of their long-haul carriers. For the privilege of using that backbone (aka transport) they pay L3 a pile of money. Now when the traffic hops off L3 and onto the various L3-to-Comcast peering points, all of a sudden there is a gross imbalance between traffic flows. L3 says "pay up", Comcast says "bugger off". Comcast' lawyers call up Netflix and say "WTF, you pony up the money L3 wants us to pay since the gross imbalance if your damn service". Netflix says "but, but but, if we have to pay you, our service fees would have to double or triple! Plus you (comcast) have an unfair advantage since your own video service stays inside your network". Comcast says, "Bite me! For years you've been lying to the public and investors as to what the TRUE cost of offering your service really is. And we're not going to be bullied into subsidizing you! So don't even try playing the Neutrality card, ass**** because this has nothing to do with neutrality. Alternatively, why don't you put video distribution servers in our interconnection points (aka datacenters) and pay us for power/space and top-of-rack bandwidth, then. That will go a long way toward equalizing the traffic flows and L3 will stop sending us nasty emails."

Netflix says "Fine. here's your money"

All those stupid enough to assert "but Comcast' customers are paying for their service so Comcast should just deliver." Like hell! The true cost of delivering HD-streaming video from the likes of Netflix isn't REMOTELY included in your bill even if you have the cross-subsidized triple-play packages. What Comcast should do is charge customers who want to use Netflix during 5-10pm a nice $20 extra a month. They can use the money to pay off L3 and upgrade the WDMX equipment and circuits at peering points.

The whole telecomm industry in the USA is full of fraud. The people who use "no" traffic heavily subsidize those that download all kinds of sh*t including Netflix. You should pay for what you consume. but then you wouldn't be able to advertise "unlimited" Internet. The proper solution is to stop hiding Internet costs in TV packages and telephone. Priced Business Internet service? It's 3x residential because there is no cross-subsidy AND they provision their network such that they EXPECT you to use your level of bandwidth a LOT more than a home-user would.

Residential Internet should be charged by the Megabyte and congestion charging should also apply. If you use streaming, your MB charges should likewise be higher. It's common practice when resources are scarce to charge REAL costs, and it's the proper, fair, market response. Internet bandwidth isn't free nor is it unlimited, the incessant whining of GenY/Z notwithstanding.

3
12

Amazon mints a BILLION BUCKS from its cannibal cloud

disk iops

Re: Amazon is NOT cheaper than self-run CO-LO

<quote> Though ironically the FC SAN will do the hadoop job better than amazon cloud can do just about everything else. </quote>

You can save mucho money if you buy an EMC CX3-80 or otherwise expired products that you can still get next-business-day parts delivery of any number of outfits. Admittedly Hadoop is still better served by keeping disks local (10K rpm can be a real benefit) but I've done it.

0
0
disk iops

Amazon is NOT cheaper than self-run CO-LO

I built infrastructure for a similar marketing analytics firm in Reston and we saved a BUNDLE compared to what AMZ cost us per month and we weren't hitting it that hard. 6mo worth of Amazon spend was our capital investment and we got an easy 2x improvement in speed and massive improvement in elapsed time consistency. For base-load, EC2 pricing will kill you. If you have a truly massive set of jobs that can run for a few hours/days and then get torn down, then AWS is well worthwhile. VERY few people have such workloads and furthermore have the scripts to build/destroy their environment to take advantage of the unique capability.

2
0

The future of storage: disk-based or just discombobulated?

disk iops

it's called erasure-coding

sheesh, nobody sane uses RAID anymore. At >2TB raid6 is a must and none of FB/Amazon/Google use RAID. Erasure coding (eg. 7 choose 15) pays a footprint penalty of 2x the original data but has HUMONGOUS better resiliency against loss (I only need 7 intact pieces to reconstruct the data). Yes the maths cost CPU but really, CPUs are stupid fast so nobody cares about that cost.

It ain't only FB trialing WD's drives in their cheaper and faster than tape cloud storage solution.

0
0

Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle

disk iops

Re: Useful, yes

@Tom, you do realize the WEBUI is for not for serious users, right? It was written so the riff-raff would quit their bitching and moaning about having to use a CLI or write *gasp* some code. If you have ~dozen hosts, sure go ahead. But if you use cloud you are EXPECTED to use the API in a programmatic fashion.

Cloud is NOT designed to be user-friendly. It's designed for people who do massive scale (and transient) computing. Yes, sure 98% of the accounts are using AWS as "cheap" (HA!) colocation alternative but that's not the design target. EBS is a sop to the clueless who couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that cloud computing is DISPOSABLE computing. You were never supposed to have persistent data except in S3. You spin up a volatile instance, fetch what you need out of S3, do some work, save your results back to S3, and die in a sudden flash of light.

And yes you can launch a zillion instances all at once. There are customers that do precisely that. Spawn a few thousand and do a CPUID check and terminate those they don't like.

0
0

Dude, relax – it's Just a Bunch Of Disks: Our man walks you through how JBODs work

disk iops

> individual "system" controls an entire rack's worth of disks. I can't find anyone doing that

AWS/S3 uses 96 disk enclosures in 4U. Glacier 3 enclosures per 'head'. I've seen other setups of 60, 70 (HP MDS600), or SGI's 84 drive enclosures connected 4-up to a single head. The redundancy is not computed within the unit. It is computed ACROSS units using software erasure-coding. So even if a full rack of disks blinks out, you're just peachy. Now if you lose too many racks that have the ~same set of objects on them (across datacenters even) such that you bust the N:K resiliency, then yes, LOTS of objects/files/customers can be effected.

0
0

Amazon forms THE VIRTY DOZEN to assassinate rival flash cloud servers

disk iops

Re: 30GB of RAM, 320GB of SSD, and 16vCPUs for $1.20 ..

AWS is used by people who

1) don't have IT compute/network staff (or cheaped out and got spaffers)

2) don't want to enter into long term contracts for CoLo (which may not be available locally)

3) want to kick developers out of the on-prem equipment and stop being bothered by them

4) meager capital budgets and/or don't know what they really need HW wise and want ~ZERO lead times if they want to reconfig the mix. aka prototype and what-if

5) have absolutely massive jobs and BW needs that would be extremely expensive to sink capital into (or sign ISP/CoLo contracts for) when they don't need it steady-state

6) can't do math

Where AWS makes little sense is when you have a modicum of sufficiently skilled staff, and a known base load of compute and I/O with reasonable growth rates.

I've personally moved organizations OUT of AWS for big-Data and other workloads because on-prem was 1/3rd the cost and ran 50%+ faster and more *predictably*. But their big-data wasn't at the mind-blowing scale and it was running continuously. Just 4 months worth of AWS spend bought the entire on-prem stack.

0
0

Server, server in the rack, when's my disk drive going to crack?

disk iops

erasure coding, not RAID

Especially with all this nonsense over RoHS (hello tin whiskers), and cutting corners by making in China vs Taiwan or the Phillipeans, even enterprise drives are starting to suck. A certain large cloud provider decided to run their JBOD chassis in such a way as to suck in HOT air and wondered why drives would fail by the bushel. I always spend the extra $20 and buy the SAS models.

Anyone want to help me write an erasure coding module for Linux MD?

0
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017