4 ms·

Some have theorized that this is what's behind Amazon Glacier, and that they want to keep it to themselves: https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-s

Some have theorized that this is what's behind Amazon Glacier, and that they want to keep it to themselves: https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bdxl/ https://storagemojo.com/2014/04/25/amazons-glacier-secret-bd... I also crave for such cheap storage, perfect for archival/backups, especially when combined with modern snapshotting. HVDs never really materialized, despite being promising, and actually on the market at some point, IIRC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc A lot of other medium were developped, never commercialized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_optical_data_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_optical_data_storage A new optical storage medium is long overdue. This time, it will probably be without support from the media industry.

jcadam 5y ago
I'd take an on-prem solution for cheap archival storage any day over Glacier.
- manquer 5y ago
  With egress costs on s3 that may not be viable if you generate data on the cloud
fomine3 5y ago
Is the suspect for Glacier proven?
- derekp7 5y ago
  I can't see them using optical based on their price structure (compared to bluray media costs per GB). And I doubt they own a manufacturing facility to crank out super-secret multi-terabyte-sized optical disks. However it fits right in with the cost of LTO tapes. Quick back of the envelop: Their web site says 1$ per TB per month starting cost. That is $12/TB per year. A 12 TB LTO-8 tape costs around $70 retail, which puts it at $5.60 per TB. So the cost of the media used to store customer data is paid back in 6 months, or slightly more if they are using parity tapes. That would be my guess, the customer data hits disk first, then gets enough parity and split among enough data centers to hit their reliability target.
azalemeth 5y ago
> A new optical storage medium is long overdue. This time, it will probably be without support from the media industry. If anything, I hope that will massively help its adoption. Blu-Ray is a DRM cess-hole of unnecessary complexity. Players – which many people bought blu-ray drives to be – have to be cryptographically secure, contain "upgrade only" firmware (to enforce key revocation mechanisms) and contain a fairly complex microprocessor. There's no official linux support. All of these anti-features directly compete with "low cost" and "widely available". If I could put 10 TB on a DVD-sized disc, even as a WORM storage medium, and the disc was cheap, I'd buy the thing tomorrow

jcadam 5y ago

I'd take an on-prem solution for cheap archival storage any day over Glacier.

manquer 5y ago
With egress costs on s3 that may not be viable if you generate data on the cloud

fomine3 5y ago

Is the suspect for Glacier proven?

derekp7 5y ago
I can't see them using optical based on their price structure (compared to bluray media costs per GB). And I doubt they own a manufacturing facility to crank out super-secret multi-terabyte-sized optical disks. However it fits right in with the cost of LTO tapes. Quick back of the envelop: Their web site says 1$ per TB per month starting cost. That is $12/TB per year. A 12 TB LTO-8 tape costs around $70 retail, which puts it at $5.60 per TB. So the cost of the media used to store customer data is paid back in 6 months, or slightly more if they are using parity tapes. That would be my guess, the customer data hits disk first, then gets enough parity and split among enough data centers to hit their reliability target.

azalemeth 5y ago

> A new optical storage medium is long overdue. This time, it will probably be without support from the media industry. If anything, I hope that will massively help its adoption. Blu-Ray is a DRM cess-hole of unnecessary complexity. Players – which many people bought blu-ray drives to be – have to be cryptographically secure, contain "upgrade only" firmware (to enforce key revocation mechanisms) and contain a fairly complex microprocessor. There's no official linux support. All of these anti-features directly compete with "low cost" and "widely available". If I could put 10 TB on a DVD-sized disc, even as a WORM storage medium, and the disc was cheap, I'd buy the thing tomorrow