It’s hard to determine which of these three features offended and/or excited more people. Version 1.0 introduced or popularized three fundamental changes to storage design 1) you could build a system out of commodity parts and it would work, 2) you could mount hard drives vertically and they would still spin, and 3) you could use consumer hard drives in the system. The Backblaze Storage Pod was more than just affordable data storage. When you take into account that the average amount of data per user has nearly tripled in that same time period and our price is now $6/month for unlimited storage, the math works out about the same for everyone as it did in 2009. Storage Pod 1.0 allowed us to store one petabyte of data for about $81,000, today we’ve lowered that to about $35,000 with Storage Pod 6.0. We decided to build our own storage servers when it became apparent if we were to use the other solutions available, we’d have to charge a whole lot more money. Our goal was to charge $5/month for unlimited data storage for one computer. Over on the Backblaze blog, they recapped some of the history.īack in 2007, when we started Backblaze, there wasn’t a whole lot of affordable choices for storing large quantities of data. In September 2009, their red 4U storage server came equipped with 45 hard drives with 67 terabytes of storage for just $7,867. With Backblaze, you can download all of your files, or have them mailed to you on a USB drive. If you have a fire, flood, or theft, a local Time Machine backup might not be useable. Today, Backblaze has announced the tenth anniversary of the first release of the Backblaze Storage Pod.īackblaze offers unlimited backup (including attached USB drives) for only $6 per month. I’ve been a subscriber for many years, and I have no plans of leaving anytime soon. While cloud-backups weren’t new to me when I came across them, having a native macOS app for a cloud-backup service was something I knew I wanted. Even with all of those disks, this setup really is only going to be suitable for sequential and streaming workloads.I’ve been a big fan of Backblaze for years now. Why can I say this? I've had to administer Backblaze units and personally own a Sun x4540 full of SATA disks ( meh). We rarely hear about Windows Storage Spaces here, so my guess is that the industry mindshare is low. In reality, your issues will probably be SATA disk timeouts, failed drives, controller issues (firmware), power and cooling, vibration. You may want more RAM, but I don't know the specifics of how WSS leverages physical memory. Your CPU is what I normally spec in ZFS storage systems. Advanced filesystems luckily don't need much CPU horsepower.How will you get data onto and off of the server? If anything, that would be your try bottleneck.If random read/write performance is important, this is the wrong solution.If the purpose is some other application with a relatively small working set, I'm assuming it can be handled at the SSD caching layer. If the purpose is backups, why do the specific IOPS matter?.When people talk about large datasets, the application is usually backup or something where the active working set of data is just a subset of the data on disk.You're using a bunch of capacity-optimized disks, so whatever you're doing seems like it involves a large amount of data.And this is generic advice the same for a Windows Storage Spaces solution, versus ZFS, versus traditional filesystems. It really depends on what you'll be doing with the system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |