3 ms·
"as an example, recovering from a failed datacenter that was hosting a petabyte of data over a 10 Gb/sec link will take more than a year" Does it really? What
by weel 19y ago
"as an example, recovering from a failed datacenter that was hosting a petabyte of data over a 10 Gb/sec link will take more than a year"
Does it really? What if you load the data onto some physical medium and physically move it from wherever it's backed up into the failed data center? The latency of vans with disks or tapes may be high, but the throughput can still way exceed that of networks.
- staunch 19y agoYou're right of course. The famous quote for this is "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tape" It's a laughable example anyway. Very few sites use anywhere near a petabyte of storage. I think he overshot a bit there. I also think he's generally right about S3. I can only think of two scenarios where I would recommend S3: 1. You're spending such small amounts of money that buying your own storage servers is out of the question. 2. You don't have anyone qualified to run your storage servers.