undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphilippb4y ago0 comments

The is amazing. Thank you. I’ve been looking at Backblaze storage pods that seem to be designed for that use case. Never rented rack space.

Do you remember somehow the math on how much cheaper it was or how you thought about upfront cost vs ongoing. Just order of magnitude would be great.

0 comments

mceachen4y ago

Roughly a decade ago S3 storage pricing had a ~10x premium over self-hosted. The convenience of not having to touch any hardware is expensive.

sethhochberg4y ago

Its also important to consider how often disks will fail when you are operating hundreds of them - its probably more often than you'd think, and if you don't have someone on staff and nearby to your colo provider you're going to pay a lot in remote hands fees.

Your colo facility will almost certainly have 24/7 staff on hand who can help you with tasks like swapping disks from a pile of spares, but expect to pay $300+ minimum just to get someone to walk over to your racks, even if the job is 10 mins.

With that said, the cost savings can still be enormous. But know what you're getting into.

marcinzm4y ago

Like another comment said, don't bother swapping out disks, just leave the dead ones in place and disable them in software. Then eventually either replace the whole server or get someone on site to do a mass swap of disks. At this scale redundancy needs to be spread between machines anyway so no gain in replacing disks as they die.

1 more reply

shiftpgdn4y ago

I currently pay about $40 for a half hour of remote hands at a large data center. Modern disks rarely need to be swapped. You can look at BackBlaze's published failure rates and do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

lunatuna4y ago

I’ve used Netapps and Isilon in the past. We didn’t change any disks, they did as part of the maintenance. Not sure how the physical security worked but they were let in by the data centre staff and did their thing. I think they came in weekly.

They whole solution wasn’t cheap though and all of these extras were baked into the cost. We were getting better than S3 costs from a per TB straight up without considering power , cooling and rack space costs. Network was significantly cheaper than AWS.

Not sure on how far these NAS’ scale but I would expect deep discounts for something of this scale.

cmeacham984y ago

I've run the math on this for 1PB of similar data (all pictures), and for us it was about 1.5-2 orders of magnitude cheaper over the span of 10 years (our guess for depreciation on the hardware).

Note that we were getting significantly cheaper bandwidth than S3 and similar providers, which made up over half of our savings.

ehosca4y ago

https://www.aberdeeninc.com/systems/storage/san/petarack

epistasis4y ago

Upfront costs, with networking, rack and stacked, and wired, were far under $100/TB raw, around $40-$60, but this was quite a while ago and I don't know how it looks in the era of 10+TB drives. Also remember that once you are off S3 you are in the situation of doing your own backup, and the use case dictates the required availability when things fail... we didn't need anything online, but mirrored to a second site. With erasure coding, you can get by with 1.5x copies at each site or so, with a performance hit. So properly backed up with a full double, it's about 3x raw...

Opex will be power, data center rent, and internet access are hugely hugely variable. And of course, the personnel will be at least 1 full time person who's extremely competent.

dangerboysteve4y ago

if you have looked at BB storage pods you should look at the 45drives.com the child of Protocase which manufactures the BB pods.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse