Re: [AFMUG] OT: Google storage math

Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:03:10 -0800

There are other form factors (E.G. M.2 an example), that have pretty darn fast interfaces. But I think the driving issues are going to be speed and the ability to swap them quickly and easily.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 1/27/2021 11:36 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
Looks like 30TB SSD drives exist in a 2.5" Form factor now. 
https://www.newegg.com/samsung-pm1643-30-72tb/p/2U3-0005-000H7?item=9SIA994CAV5304
In theory price should continue to drop like they did with all previous sizes.  I'm not sure why SSD is fixated on the 2.5" size.  I would think that with the extra space of 3.5" they would easily scale higher. 

I'm guessing that Spinning disks are on their way out? 

Of course you could just go all in with the 100TB disk
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/worlds-biggest-ssd-costs-40000/articleshow/76878101.cms

Just think, in 20 years we'll be talking about all that small scale storage, back when a single disk was ONLY 100TB. 



On 1/27/2021 11:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Recently, I read an article about spinning disks that should scale to 80 TB per 3.5" drive.

From: "Bill Prince" <part15...@gmail.com>
To: af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:32:15 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Google storage math

I read an analysis recently (unfortunately I don't remember where it was) discussing the optimum size for a storage device. It was making the argument that the size itself becomes a problem when it exceeds 16TB or thereabouts. When it gets much larger, it interferes with just getting data on/off because of transfer speeds and the shear amount of data contained therein (or thereon?).


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 1/27/2021 9:26 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
It doesn't take into account the capacity of new drives increasing either though, so it could very well be close to linear, as far as physical space goes.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:11 AM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

That does not take into account the rate of growth. It's probably not linear, but I would not know if it is geometric or what.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 1/27/2021 8:42 AM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
Off by a factor of 10.  Each data center would be good for 140 years...
 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Google storage math
 
In one small corner of the larger data centers.  Those things are huge.  3000 square feed (including aisle space) against 10 acre data centers.  Each data center would be good for 14 years and there are hundreds of data centers. 
 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Google storage math
 
I look at it a different way. First, they are probably using 16TB drives (although I don't know). Based on what I've read, 16TB is the sweet spot for efficient large storage. That said, a single rack a day seems like a big deal to me. That's 365 racks per year. Yeesh. Talk about real estate. They are probably having to get creative on where to park all that stuff.
 
Oh yeah. Monetization too.
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
 
 
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:23 PM Robert <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:
Only have to limit it to make you pay... Monitization.   One of the
first and richest of the non-founding googlers was the director of
monitization...

On 1/26/21 7:12 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
> I got an email today reminding me about the changes to Google Photos,
> and how they're going to be counting against your Drive storage
> limit.  The email said that "4.3 million GB of data are uploaded to
> drive/photos/docs every day"
>
> 4,300,000 GB = 4199 TB = 4.1 PB
>
> So some quick back of the napkin math
>
> 4.1PB, Rumors are that Google creates 3 copies of all data for
> redundancy.  So every day they have to provide new storage for ~12.3PB
> of storage
>
> Take an average size Hard drive of ~12TB That's 1050 hard Disks per day.
>
> For math's sake, a backblaze storage pod can hold 60 disks in 4U. So
> that's 18 Drive pods per day.  So 72U of rackspace.  That's only a
> single rack per day, Not bad.  Data centers are big.
>
> If they're getting the drives for $100 each, then that's $105,000/day
> or $38.3M/year.  So providing the storage for all of Google
> photos/drive/docs is basically a rounding error to Alphabet.
>
> Why are they having to limit my storage again?
>
> I'm really curious how much raw data is uploaded to youtube every day,
> but I haven't seen any publicly available figures recently (within the
> last several years).
>


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com








-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to