3 ms·
Although Glacier is interesting and I use it every day for some of my backups (a few TB of ongoing backups via Arq). But I have always assumed it was just -- l
by veidr 13y ago
Although Glacier is interesting and I use it every day for some of my backups (a few TB of ongoing backups via Arq).
But I have always assumed it was just -- like the mysteriously/inappropriately killed comments from jeffers_hanging on this thread claim -- just S3 with hard delays enforced by software.
If you are already doing S3 for the entire world at exabyte scale, and you have petabytes of excess capacity and a bunch of aging, lower-performance infrastructure sitting around... do you really need to fuck with risky new optical disk formats?
It seems to me that you could just start with selling slowed-down rebranded S3, and then iterate on it.
- grogers 13y agoIIRC there was a similar rumor that S3 reduced redundancy storage was just cheaper rates for the exact same service. Not sure if that is true, but certainly meets the minimum viable product. Glacier as S3 with sleeps seems to be a pretty reasonable extrapolation of that same idea. Plus, the sleeps are long enough that if and when they build it for real, it could be economically viable. That said, if the quoted 0.3 cents is true, it should be viable as it is by just stuffing way more density in a rack and keeping them powered down most of the time... Though that rack would probably weigh tons, so you'd probably want to reinforce the floor of the data center a bit. We saw equinix facilities with concrete floors and ventilation delivered from above, so something like that could be an option.