4 ms·

Seems expensive. 2TB drives are now around $70 (Maybe even cheaper if you buy in bulk). 135TB = 68 drives. 68 * $70 = $4,760 Is that rack so expensive?

by rorrr 15y ago

m0shen 15y ago
They're using 3TB drives
ceejayoz 15y ago
The prices are entirely laid out in part 3, titled "Real World Backblaze Costs". http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/
wazoox 15y ago
The box has 48 slots, so they must use 3 TB drives. They may be not completely crazy and use professional, not desktop drives. A 3TB pro drive costs about $200.
- duskwuff 15y ago
  If you're sufficiently crazy to trust your data to a Backblaze pod, you're probably going to go full retard and use desktop disks anyway. If you cared about your data you probably wouldn't be building one of these things in the first place. :) Also: depends what you're considering "pro drives", but enterprise SATA 3TB disks are in the $250 - $300 range -- about 2x the price of a similar consumer-grade disk.
  - serverascode 15y ago
    AFAIK 3TB SAS drives, of which there's only Hitachi and Seagate I believe, cost about $320 CDN. ;) I use that number to figure out how much enterprise storage chassis actually cost by subtracting the number of disks * $320. :)
  - imaginator 15y ago
    Has anyone done any research to find a difference between "desktop" drives and "enterprise/pro" drives? I'm inclined to believe it's marketing speak and targeted at the same people that buy electron-aligned speaker cable.
    - wmf 15y ago
      The difference between desktop and nearline SATA is basically TLER and warranty. Nearline SAS adds dual ports, maybe better ECC, and maybe better IOPS.
    - wazoox 15y ago
      Actually the difference is only in firmware; each drive is tested when reaching the end of the factory line, and the test results decide if it'll be desktop or enterprise. So physically the only difference is the label. Different brands makes the separation more or less clear : WD desktop drives firmwares are explicitly crippled to be made almost unusable in RAID arrays (on the web and forums you'll find countless horror stories of lost arrays); Seagate and Hitachi desktop drives work about OK in RAID arrays, but you may have surprises at times. So what's the difference? First, the desktop drive assumes to be alone. In case of a read or write error, it will try and retry to access the data for several long minutes (long timeout). Pro drives assume to be in RAID arrays, in case of an error they fail almost immediately not to block any outstanding IOs to the array. Another difference is in vibration compensation. Desktop drive don't use their movement detectors to compensate from drive-induced chassis vibration, which in case of high IO will significantly reduce throughput by augmenting error rate.
      - bradfa 15y ago
        If you (or someone you know) has a write up detailing these statements and tests showing them to be true, I'd be very interested in reading more about this. Please do share. It sounds like what you're saying makes sense, from a drive business and manufacturing perspective.
        wazoox 15y ago
  - driverdan 15y ago
    Next time read the articles before commenting. Had you read it (and Backblaze's original) you'd understand why they went with consumer drives.
  - moe 15y ago
    If you cared about your data you probably wouldn't be building one of these things in the first place. This seems a bit off considering Backblaze demonstrates right here that you can care about your data and your budget at the same time.
    - nobody314159 15y ago
      Backblaze don't build 'one' of thes e- their whole philosophy is to build very cheap storage and duplicate. If you are going to use high-end 'pro' drives then wouldn't you just buy a high-end enterprise grade SAN anyway?
reemrevnivek 15y ago
You need to go back to the top of the page (not the "related posts" at the bottom ... >_>) and find part 3: http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ Projected cost from Backblaze was $7384, for drives at $120 each and other parts sourced in quantity. A lot of the expense for these guys came from the $5400 everything-but-the-drives kit from Protocase. The drives were more expensive because a certain model of 3TB Hitachi drives are the parts recommended by Backblaze; they didn't get whatever happened to be on sale at Newegg that day. The drives were supposed to be $120 each in Backblaze's quantities. They ended up finding a sales rep at CDW.com who sold them for $129 in quantity, but they were more expensive elsewhere.

Seems expensive. 2TB drives are now around $70 (Maybe even cheaper if you buy in bulk). 135TB = 68 drives. 68 * $70 = $4,760 Is that rack so expensive?

by rorrr 15y ago

Seems expensive. 2TB drives are now around $70 (Maybe even cheaper if you buy in bulk). 135TB = 68 drives. 68 * $70 = $4,760 Is that rack so expensive?

m0shen 15y ago

They're using 3TB drives

ceejayoz 15y ago

The prices are entirely laid out in part 3, titled "Real World Backblaze Costs". http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/

wazoox 15y ago

The box has 48 slots, so they must use 3 TB drives. They may be not completely crazy and use professional, not desktop drives. A 3TB pro drive costs about $200.

duskwuff 15y ago
If you're sufficiently crazy to trust your data to a Backblaze pod, you're probably going to go full retard and use desktop disks anyway. If you cared about your data you probably wouldn't be building one of these things in the first place. :) Also: depends what you're considering "pro drives", but enterprise SATA 3TB disks are in the $250 - $300 range -- about 2x the price of a similar consumer-grade disk.
- serverascode 15y ago
  AFAIK 3TB SAS drives, of which there's only Hitachi and Seagate I believe, cost about $320 CDN. ;) I use that number to figure out how much enterprise storage chassis actually cost by subtracting the number of disks * $320. :)
- imaginator 15y ago
  Has anyone done any research to find a difference between "desktop" drives and "enterprise/pro" drives? I'm inclined to believe it's marketing speak and targeted at the same people that buy electron-aligned speaker cable.
  - wmf 15y ago
    The difference between desktop and nearline SATA is basically TLER and warranty. Nearline SAS adds dual ports, maybe better ECC, and maybe better IOPS.
  - wazoox 15y ago
    Actually the difference is only in firmware; each drive is tested when reaching the end of the factory line, and the test results decide if it'll be desktop or enterprise. So physically the only difference is the label. Different brands makes the separation more or less clear : WD desktop drives firmwares are explicitly crippled to be made almost unusable in RAID arrays (on the web and forums you'll find countless horror stories of lost arrays); Seagate and Hitachi desktop drives work about OK in RAID arrays, but you may have surprises at times. So what's the difference? First, the desktop drive assumes to be alone. In case of a read or write error, it will try and retry to access the data for several long minutes (long timeout). Pro drives assume to be in RAID arrays, in case of an error they fail almost immediately not to block any outstanding IOs to the array. Another difference is in vibration compensation. Desktop drive don't use their movement detectors to compensate from drive-induced chassis vibration, which in case of high IO will significantly reduce throughput by augmenting error rate.
    - bradfa 15y ago
      If you (or someone you know) has a write up detailing these statements and tests showing them to be true, I'd be very interested in reading more about this. Please do share. It sounds like what you're saying makes sense, from a drive business and manufacturing perspective.
      - wazoox 15y ago
- driverdan 15y ago
  Next time read the articles before commenting. Had you read it (and Backblaze's original) you'd understand why they went with consumer drives.
- moe 15y ago
  If you cared about your data you probably wouldn't be building one of these things in the first place. This seems a bit off considering Backblaze demonstrates right here that you can care about your data and your budget at the same time.
  - nobody314159 15y ago
    Backblaze don't build 'one' of thes e- their whole philosophy is to build very cheap storage and duplicate. If you are going to use high-end 'pro' drives then wouldn't you just buy a high-end enterprise grade SAN anyway?

reemrevnivek 15y ago

You need to go back to the top of the page (not the "related posts" at the bottom ... >_>) and find part 3: http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ http://bioteam.net/2011/08/real-world-backblaze-costs/ Projected cost from Backblaze was $7384, for drives at $120 each and other parts sourced in quantity. A lot of the expense for these guys came from the $5400 everything-but-the-drives kit from Protocase. The drives were more expensive because a certain model of 3TB Hitachi drives are the parts recommended by Backblaze; they didn't get whatever happened to be on sale at Newegg that day. The drives were supposed to be $120 each in Backblaze's quantities. They ended up finding a sales rep at CDW.com who sold them for $129 in quantity, but they were more expensive elsewhere.