3 ms·
I'm surprised HDD don't turn out to be less expensive option calculating in all infrastructure + man hours. Do you have a ballpark what's percentage cost differ
by comboy 3y ago
I'm surprised HDD don't turn out to be less expensive option calculating in all infrastructure + man hours. Do you have a ballpark what's percentage cost difference for your use case?
- rtkwe 3y agoAt the PB scale you start running robotic tape machines that eliminate much of the human labor involved.
- londons_explore 3y agoWorth noting that many uses for hard drives are IO limited. Ie. you're running a database and keep a few hundred GB of hot records in RAM, tens of TB of medium records on SSD, and a few PB of rarely accessed records on hard drives. However, even those rarely accessed records often have more accesses per year than the hard drives can support - so you are forced to buy 400 drives instead of 200 drives and keep each half full. End result: There is a lot of 'almost free' space on the hard drives, as long as you are happy to only read/write the data very rarely.
- rtkwe 3y agoIf you're having such an IO bottleneck that you're doubling your HDD array to provide the necessary throughput how do you actually run backups or restores using those disks? Do you hope you only need it in off hours?