4 ms·
Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. > They also use Reed-Solomon and split data into multiple pieces to store on multiple servers. So they need all those "load ba
by brianwski 8y ago
Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze.
> They also use Reed-Solomon and split data into multiple pieces to store on multiple servers. So they need all those "load balancing"-like nodes anyway
Yes. We definitely do "load balancing" or more accurately "disk space loading balancing" but we do it all in software. The net outcome is the same, but the cost is lower.
> probably no new hardware or infrastructure is necessary to conform to S3 API
No, it would require additional hardware we do not purchase at all right now. Backblaze's philosophy is to shave off cost at all layers if it doesn't actually contribute to uptime or durability. Put differently, if there is a lower cost way to achieve the same uptime or durability with some intelligent software or possibly an extra network round trip, we do it that way instead of purchasing extra hardware.
- hemancuso 8y agoWhat special hardware vs a few cores with a reverse proxy? Surely a trivial cost.
- brianwski 8y ago> Surely a trivial cost. So we both agree it is more than zero cost? Backblaze saves that cost passes on the savings to customers. I'm not sure what the exact costs would be because Backblaze did not implement it that way. > a few cores By "a few" do you mean 10, 100, 1000 or...? For how much bandwidth will your solution support? For example, can your few cores support 10 Gbits/sec? 100 GBits/sec? 1 TBit/sec? Backblaze is COMPLETELY FREE of worrying about these questions, because our solution does not require this additional step and this additional hardware, and therefore does not have this choke point.