3 ms·
It seems like an interesting denial of service attack against storage. Part of the challenge of the surveillance state is that it is "easy" to keep everything s
by ChuckMcM 6y ago
It seems like an interesting denial of service attack against storage. Part of the challenge of the surveillance state is that it is "easy" to keep everything since storage is so cheap, but if you wanted to make storage expensive, and could not dictate the market prices, you could create a system that consumed massive amounts of storage and removed it from being available for other uses.
That said, people burning up SSDs by writing stuff to them seems, kind of par for the course. I wonder if these same SSD vendors exclude video surveillance from their warranties? After all storing HD video 24/7/365 is a lot of writing and typically way more than the "normal" use.
- tomerv 6y agoDo you really need SSDs to store video? If you build a surveillance system, it would probably be cheaper with HDDs.
- ddorian43 6y agoIn chia you need 1 SSD for every ~100+ HDD. You need HDDs more.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoYes and no. Typical multi-camera video systems can generate data at a prodigious rate. You can "either" put together a RAID system to handle the write bandwidth your you can use a couple of SSDs. The latter is "simpler" the former is more "economical". That said, when NetApp was trying to sell SATA based filers into this market (which, not surprisingly is VERY cost sensitive) two things became apparent. First, up front system cost had to be minimized, and the vendors of these systems saw disk failure as a revenue opportunity to "roll a truck" to the customer and replace a failed drive.