[FoRK] Amazon S3 storage service

Stephen D. Williams < sdw at lig.net > on > Tue Mar 14 19:04:23 PST 2006

I know they are in an entirely different price range.  So why is the EMC 
stuff such a pain with catastrophic failures that take tons of effort to 
unravel and the scalable stuff like Google's 200,000 servers/drives 
apparently so easy?

Obviously using more appropriate data / processing / communication / 
management models is a big win.  Pushing everything through narrow fibre 
channels to a large SAN is obviously less total bandwidth than each 
drive having a fast path to the CPU, even legacy IDE does well there.  
Trying to fix bandwidth to a SAN with an expensive and complicated 
multi-channel multiplexer just widens the gap.

In between are things like iSCSI and distributed filesystems.

In the long run, we need cheap, independent drives that minimize power, 
have very fast networking through a combination of daisy chaining and 
network switches, and have a general purpose onboard IO processor with 
plenty of cache that people can load Linux with rapidly evolving 
networking / storage management software.  So every drive becomes an 
embedded Linux server that can be directly connected to a compute server 
/ desktop or dispersed on the network.

sdw

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:08:31PM -0500, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
>   
>> This kind of capability stands in stark contrast to the high premium for 
>> storage paid for infrastructure based on EMC and other fibre-channel SAN 
>> systems.
>>     
>
> I don't see how you could compare FC SAN with SATA (~enterprise-class)
> drives shovelled over a bunch of racked PC boxes. It is an entirely 
> different price range. If only Sun Fire X2100 would take 4 SATA drives 
> frontally...
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>   


More information about the FoRK mailing list