3 ms·
All three of those would prefer the cheapest, immediately replaceable option of off the shelf drives rather than small run, low availability drives. Even if the
by TheRealPomax 3y ago
All three of those would prefer the cheapest, immediately replaceable option of off the shelf drives rather than small run, low availability drives. Even if the dollar per petabyte figure is lower, "we can't make that many" is a problem if you want to sell to AWS and friends. It's going to be a long time before these drives hit AWS scale, so they'll need to win over the much smaller fish first.
And of course these days with AWS, the other risk is Amazon going "yeah we're just going to literally steal your idea and make our own, and there's nothing you can do about it because no lawsuit you bring would fine us an amount we can't just write off as a business expense" if it'll save them enough money.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoI’m not sure that’s entirely true. Aws at least is ok with exotic technologies if they’re an order of magnitude or more beneficial. The scales discussed are not on magnetic roadmaps and are compelling enough. Glacier is today a fairly custom hardware kit built around tape infrastructure and used to be based on spinning disks. They’ve redeveloped it at least once and would again