![]() Even including the surrounding costs-such as electricity, bandwidth, space rental, and IT administrators’ salaries-Backblaze spends one-tenth of the price in comparison to using Amazon S3, Dell Servers, NetApp Filers, or an EMC SAN. This translates to just three-tenths of one penny per gigabyte per month over the course of three years. The result is a 4U rack-mounted Linux-based server that contains 67 terabytes at a material cost of $7,867, the bulk of which goes to purchase the drives themselves. We had two primary goals: Keep upfront costs low by using consumer-grade drives and readily available commodity components and be as power and space efficient as possible by using green components and squeezing a lot of storage into a small box.(使用消费级别和廉价磁盘来减少附加费用,使用绿色组件降低能耗和空间使用) Here’s a comparison chart of the price for one petabyte from various venders:(其他厂商服务器除去存储之外附加费用非常高,甚至超过存储本身10倍以上)įile./images/cost-of-a-petabyte-chart.jpgīased on the expense, we decided to build our own Backblaze Storage Pods. But when we priced various off-the-shelf solutions, the cost was 10 times as much (or more) than the raw hard drives. When you strip away the marketing terms and fancy logos from any storage solution, data ends up on a hard drive. As we investigated these traditional off-the-shelf solutions, we became increasingly disillusioned by the expense. TODO(dirlt):具体硬件方面的细节没有看也看不懂 Pod 1.0 No One Sells Cheap Storage, so We Designed Itīefore realizing that we had to solve this storage problem ourselves, we considered Amazon S3, Dell or Sun Servers, NetApp Filers, EMC SAN, etc. Backblaze Blog » 180TB of Good Vibrations – Storage Pod 3.0 :.Backblaze Blog » Petabytes on a Budget v2.0:Revealing More Secrets :.Backblaze Blog » Petabytes on a budget: How to build cheap cloud storage :. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |