I think current S3 pricing for 50TB at 0.125/GB comes to about
6250/month.  That is for "Designed for 99.999999999% Durability".  I
can't even count that many 9s.  I know you can buy HDs for about
$50/TB = $2500 for that 50TB. Assuming you replace them all once a
year its still only $5000.

But we all know that to even get to 99.99 there are lot more parts to
the above equation.  Anybody have a ballpark on what it really costs
to park that 50TB on your server room rack?

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Bob Basques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I'm working on a similar project currently.  Setting up 50tb of storage, we 
> went the route of multiple CPUs, with large disks.   Redundant raid config, 
> so half of physical disk available for storage.  We're in the 30+tb of real 
> storage across a 4U setup right now.  Cost (with hardware/setup/initial 
> config) is below those numbers below (so far), because we're building from 
> scratch and learning along the way.
>
> I would tend to agree on not using the off site stuff, just considering the 
> moving of the data and the idea of co-lo to some other remote location starts 
> to fall apart.   The transfer costs, in bandwidth and/or time, really start 
> to eat into things cost wise.  Some of this depends on the end uses as well.  
> We're building a data site for distribution of really large files and 
> datasets.
>
> bobb
>
> >>> Paul Spencer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would personally recommend against AWS S3/EBS for anything of this scale as 
> the I/O is pretty pathetic unless you invest in their very high end 
> instances.  We've set up a 4TB 'SAN' using glusterfs on AWS EC2 using 1TB EBS 
> volumes and separate instances for each - the performance has been so poor 
> that we have had to redesign our workflow to get copies of data onto EBS 
> attached to each mapserver instance - for scaling that sucks and even then 
> the I/O performance of EBS is not that great on the normal instances.
>
> I'm not a hardware guy but I think the purpose of a dedicated SAN box is to 
> provide high bandwidth access to large amounts storage so that the data can 
> effectively be distributed to/from multiple machines over a network - ideal 
> for scaling mapserver onto multiple servers but rendering from the same 
> data.  I  read an article about a year ago from a company that provides 
> petabyte storage for online storage, it details how they built their storage 
> devices - they say $7867 for 67 terabytes
>
> http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
>
> Seems pretty geeky, but perhaps you are the hardware type or know someone who 
> is :)
>
>
> On 2011-01-28, at 3:41 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Hello guys, we're a startup and new to mapserver. We're expecting large 
> > amounts of data to come by (at least on our scale) around 40-60TB of raster 
> > images for mapserver to render. My question is for the infrastructure, what 
> > is the best way to store this (cost-efficiently)?
> >
> > - Do we just get a dedicated server with a lot of HDDs? I'm looking at a 
> > 48TB setup in RAID 1+0 so i get 24TB right what happens now if we need 
> > more? Also, how can we scale from the mapserver side?  Is access to 
> > different storage servers possible?
> > - I've considered SANs but then it's not practical right because only one 
> > machine will access the storage?
> > - What about Amazon's S3? or EBS? Anything we can use on that?
> >
> > I wish to get awesome advice on this storage issue, basically what the 
> > considered best practice is for the mapserver people :P Thanks
> > _______________________________________________
> > mapserver-users mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>
>
> __________________________________________
>
>    Paul Spencer
>    Chief Technology Officer
>    DM Solutions Group Inc
>    http://research.dmsolutions.ca/
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>
_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users

Reply via email to