3 ms·

There's a few reasons: * Dropbox doesn't guarantee 11 9s like this service does - when I'm backing critical data up, I want to make sure it's _there_. * Dropb

by manacit 12y ago

There's a few reasons: * Dropbox doesn't guarantee 11 9s like this service does - when I'm backing critical data up, I want to make sure it's _there_. * Dropbox likely wouldn't take kindly to me storing 10PB, whereas that is what this service is designed for. * I've got SLAs and guaranteed speeds with this, Dropbox isn't designed for me to suddenly download 10PB very quickly.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Where are you seeing these durability claims? I can't find them. And what would 12 9s durability even mean? You lose one byte out of every TB?
- throwawaymsft 12y ago
  I'm thinking (unrecoverable data loss / total data stored) in their system per year.
- manacit 12y ago
  It's 11, not 12, I misspoke. Those claims are from glacier: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ which is priced the same per GB of data. In this case, the durability refers to the loss of data/objects stored per year - if you're sending multiple PBs of data off to Glacier, you want to be able to retrieve them many years later. Even 5 9s would mean that 1 object out of 100,000 is lost every year, which is quite poor.
Spearchucker 12y ago
12 9s is new to me too. Not worked on anything better than 5 9s (5 mins downtime/year), and Wikipedia only goes to 9. 9 9s comes to 35ms downtime a year. I can't think of anything that needs more than 5 9s, let alone 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_calculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_ca...
- jdsullivan 12y ago
  This is a durability metric, not an availability one. This typically tells you the likelihood of losing a given object in a year. (5 9's would be quite poor for this, implying a loss of 1 object out of 100,000 every year)
- manacit 12y ago
  It was 11, not 12. I misspoke: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ In this case, it's not as much service uptime as it is data retention. If you're storing 5+ PB of data, even 5 9s of data loss per year can have a measurable impact.
jason46 12y ago
The issue is with all the 9s, is it will take 3hrs to find out there is an issue, and another 3hours to make another request? I bet dropbox could fix their shit in less time.
ghshephard 12y ago
Do you have any information to suggest that the Google Nearline service can handle 10PB?
- vgt 12y ago
  If you'd like to put 10PB in storage, let's talk offline :) source: SE at Google Cloud
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  It's safe to assume this is going to be just like Glacier and S3/Google Storage, ie: unlimited. Also retrieval speeds increase with your data set size: Note: You should expect 4 MB/s of throughput per TB of data stored as Nearline Storage. This throughput scales linearly with increased storage consumption. For example, storing 3 TB of data would guarantee 12 MB/s of throughput, while storing 100 TB of data would provide users with 400 MB/s of throughput.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    I was just interested as to what these storage systems are capable of supporting. While I'm confident they could all store 10 TB of Data (That's just barely Tier-2 of 6 for Amazon), I'm wondering if they have the back end capability to store 10 PB of data.

by manacit 12y ago

thrownaway2424 12y ago

Where are you seeing these durability claims? I can't find them. And what would 12 9s durability even mean? You lose one byte out of every TB?

throwawaymsft 12y ago
I'm thinking (unrecoverable data loss / total data stored) in their system per year.
manacit 12y ago
It's 11, not 12, I misspoke. Those claims are from glacier: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ which is priced the same per GB of data. In this case, the durability refers to the loss of data/objects stored per year - if you're sending multiple PBs of data off to Glacier, you want to be able to retrieve them many years later. Even 5 9s would mean that 1 object out of 100,000 is lost every year, which is quite poor.

Spearchucker 12y ago

12 9s is new to me too. Not worked on anything better than 5 9s (5 mins downtime/year), and Wikipedia only goes to 9. 9 9s comes to 35ms downtime a year. I can't think of anything that needs more than 5 9s, let alone 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_calculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability#Percentage_ca...

jdsullivan 12y ago
This is a durability metric, not an availability one. This typically tells you the likelihood of losing a given object in a year. (5 9's would be quite poor for this, implying a loss of 1 object out of 100,000 every year)
manacit 12y ago
It was 11, not 12. I misspoke: http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/ In this case, it's not as much service uptime as it is data retention. If you're storing 5+ PB of data, even 5 9s of data loss per year can have a measurable impact.

jason46 12y ago

The issue is with all the 9s, is it will take 3hrs to find out there is an issue, and another 3hours to make another request? I bet dropbox could fix their shit in less time.

ghshephard 12y ago

Do you have any information to suggest that the Google Nearline service can handle 10PB?

vgt 12y ago
If you'd like to put 10PB in storage, let's talk offline :) source: SE at Google Cloud
res0nat0r 12y ago
It's safe to assume this is going to be just like Glacier and S3/Google Storage, ie: unlimited. Also retrieval speeds increase with your data set size: Note: You should expect 4 MB/s of throughput per TB of data stored as Nearline Storage. This throughput scales linearly with increased storage consumption. For example, storing 3 TB of data would guarantee 12 MB/s of throughput, while storing 100 TB of data would provide users with 400 MB/s of throughput.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I was just interested as to what these storage systems are capable of supporting. While I'm confident they could all store 10 TB of Data (That's just barely Tier-2 of 6 for Amazon), I'm wondering if they have the back end capability to store 10 PB of data.