9 ms·

> if you store 1 million objects in B2 for 10 million years, you would expect to lose 1 file. Can this be reformulated: you store 10 trln objects (e.g. 100TB

> if you store 1 million objects in B2 for 10 million years, you would expect to lose 1 file. Can this be reformulated: you store 10 trln objects (e.g. 100TB of 10 byte records), you lose 1 record each year. Also curious what are the stats from other providers.

jsjohnst 8y ago
> Can this be reformulated Roughly, yes. > Also curious what are the stats from other providers. As to other providers, most are 6+ 9s that I’ve looked at, with many in the 8-9 range. Anything over 8 is (as they admitted) essentially marketing porn and not a useful metric (for reasons they mentioned as well as ones said by other comments here).
- riku_iki 8y ago
  And yet, no much complains about lost GMail letters in internet because of disc failures.. And GMail is likely stores much more than 10 trln objects and 100TB of data.
  - sdmike1 8y ago
    I would be curious to see what the chance any given email is read and how much it drops off after the first reading. I would be willing to bet that out of 1000 people who receive a reasonable amount of mail you could probably find missing emails.
  - brianwski 8y ago
    A number of years ago a Gmail "insider" that I know admitted they had lost customer emails and their policy (at that time at least) was to simply ignore it and not tell anybody because most customers never notice if it is a small number. I think a much bigger scandal is that all major laptop Operating System vendors (Microsoft and Apple) absolutely know when your laptop drive loses files or even is starting to go bad in some cases, and they NEVER tell the customer. I think an excellent product offering would be a 3rd party piece of software and cloud service which was a "verification service". It wouldn't store your files offsite, it would store the name, size, and SHA1 offsite and periodically check that no bits have been flipped on your local drive unless you intended it. For example, a week after I take a photo, I absolutely never want the photo to change. Ever. Same with music I (legally) download.
- berns 8y ago
  Azure: locally redundant storage: 99.999999999 % (11 9's) zone redundant storage: 99.9999999999 % (12 9's) geographically redundant storage: 99.99999999999999 % (16 9's) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/storage/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/storage/
Dylan16807 8y ago
The raw number would imply that, but I'm pretty sure the math breaks down when you're storing 10 byte records. Chunks of your data are going to be stored together, so it's a very small chance of losing a big block of 10 byte files. There's no failure mode that loses just one, and does so often.
- riku_iki 8y ago
  > Chunks of your data are going to be stored together It probably depends on their infrastructure, e.g. if storage is something like cassandra, records would be evenly distributed by key hash. I agree that numbers likely are not like that though, just wanted to demonstrate that such calculation approach can bring unexpected conclusions.

jsjohnst 8y ago

> Can this be reformulated Roughly, yes. > Also curious what are the stats from other providers. As to other providers, most are 6+ 9s that I’ve looked at, with many in the 8-9 range. Anything over 8 is (as they admitted) essentially marketing porn and not a useful metric (for reasons they mentioned as well as ones said by other comments here).

riku_iki 8y ago
And yet, no much complains about lost GMail letters in internet because of disc failures.. And GMail is likely stores much more than 10 trln objects and 100TB of data.
- sdmike1 8y ago
  I would be curious to see what the chance any given email is read and how much it drops off after the first reading. I would be willing to bet that out of 1000 people who receive a reasonable amount of mail you could probably find missing emails.
- brianwski 8y ago
  A number of years ago a Gmail "insider" that I know admitted they had lost customer emails and their policy (at that time at least) was to simply ignore it and not tell anybody because most customers never notice if it is a small number. I think a much bigger scandal is that all major laptop Operating System vendors (Microsoft and Apple) absolutely know when your laptop drive loses files or even is starting to go bad in some cases, and they NEVER tell the customer. I think an excellent product offering would be a 3rd party piece of software and cloud service which was a "verification service". It wouldn't store your files offsite, it would store the name, size, and SHA1 offsite and periodically check that no bits have been flipped on your local drive unless you intended it. For example, a week after I take a photo, I absolutely never want the photo to change. Ever. Same with music I (legally) download.
berns 8y ago
Azure: locally redundant storage: 99.999999999 % (11 9's) zone redundant storage: 99.9999999999 % (12 9's) geographically redundant storage: 99.99999999999999 % (16 9's) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/storage/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/storage/

Dylan16807 8y ago

The raw number would imply that, but I'm pretty sure the math breaks down when you're storing 10 byte records. Chunks of your data are going to be stored together, so it's a very small chance of losing a big block of 10 byte files. There's no failure mode that loses just one, and does so often.

riku_iki 8y ago
> Chunks of your data are going to be stored together It probably depends on their infrastructure, e.g. if storage is something like cassandra, records would be evenly distributed by key hash. I agree that numbers likely are not like that though, just wanted to demonstrate that such calculation approach can bring unexpected conclusions.