4 ms·

This calculation only includes getting the data physically near to the cloud. What about uploading it into the cloud?Surely transferring 3 million GB at around

This calculation only includes getting the data physically near to the cloud. What about uploading it into the cloud?Surely transferring 3 million GB at around 40 MB/sec would lower the average? Edit: My calculations say it'll take 2.7 years to read all that data if you go at 40MBps. Hopefully they can parallelize that across a few dozen machines...

fhars 17y ago
You'd actualy put the disks into a Sun X4500 which you can just put into a rack at the destination site: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4260-Less-known-Solaris-Features-Remote-Mirror-with-AVS-Part-7-Truck-based-synchronisation.html http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/4260-Less-known-Solaris-Fea...
masklinn 17y ago
> My calculations say it'll take 2.7 years to read all that data if you go at 40MBps. 40MBps is very low, especially given the kind of files transferred over a sneakernets (it's basically the best-case for purely sequential transfers): even fairly slow drives (e.g. WD Caviar Green) are going to yield ~70MBps average transfer speeds (and velociraptors are going to be around 100MBps). And it's pretty trivial to parallelize disks over fast (e.g. 10gig or infiniband) connections. Furthermore, 3000 TB is quite "out there" with the current datasets: Google's transfers are still at a few hundred TB (and they do use sneakernets for that). Finally, modern sneakernets tend not to use raw drives: AWS Import/Export suggests full devices (maximum size is a 8U rack), Terascale Sneakernet boxes are a full PC with a bunch of drives and a Gig or 10Gig network card.