3 ms·
> Given the bandwidth of 60+ hard drives (150MB/s per hard drive x 60 == 9GB/s in/out) Given their scale and goal, it would be pretty wasteful to build it to m
by dwild 5y ago
> Given the bandwidth of 60+ hard drives (150MB/s per hard drive x 60 == 9GB/s in/out)
Given their scale and goal, it would be pretty wasteful to build it to max the writing speed of all hard drives. Considering you rarely write on the pod, you would be better of getting a fraction of that speed and writing on multiple pods at the same time to get the required peak performance.
In fact actually that makes much more sense to put that math on some ingests server and theses hard drive servers would simply write the resulting data. It makes it much easier and faster to divide it over 20 pods like they currently do.
- bluedino 5y agoDefinitely limited by the 1gbps or even 10gbs network connection
- e12e 5y agoAny pod like this would normally have at least 1x40gbps uplink minimum? Like most blade setups, like (random example): https://www.storagereview.com/review/supermicro-x11-microblade-solution-review https://www.storagereview.com/review/supermicro-x11-microbla...
- dragontamer 5y agoStorage Pod 6.0 seems to be 2x10Gbps Ethernet: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/open-source-data-storage-server/ https://www.backblaze.com/blog/open-source-data-storage-serv...
- barrkel 5y agoI don't think that makes sense for a backup application.
- nine_k 5y agoRead load alone can be pretty high. And no, you want to calculate checksums and fix bit errors right here in the RAM buffers you just read or received, because at such scales hardware is not error-free.
- electroly 5y ago> Considering you rarely write on the pod Isn't Backblaze's workload nearly exclusively writes? People back up far, far more often than they restore.
- killingtime74 5y agoI think from the other commenters perspective the workload is almost exclusively idle. Also they do object storage now, not just backup