Ok, a US military computer place is about to have 600 TERABYTES of storage space! OMG!

[mugs]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Does enterprise storage use different hard drives, or are they just large arrays of the stuff we mere mortals use?

They could use SCSI drives if speed is a priority. But the I in RAID stands for inexpensive - the point is to put a bunch of cheap drives together in a way that if you lose a couple of them you can recover. I'd guess they're using the same kind of drives we use.

 

[SpanishFry]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Does enterprise storage use different hard drives, or are they just large arrays of the stuff we mere mortals use?

Enterprise SANs typically use Fiber drives.

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: OSx86
600 Terabytes seems kind of low for a "US military computer place" IMO. Seems high to us, but they probably back up all their data many, many times

Well, it's only one office within a much larger complex. I honestly don't know if I can say which office, which is why I'm being so vague.

Heh, No Such Agency, I'd bet.

And really, this isn't that major at all if you think about it. a typical enterprise-class 2U SCSI/FC-AL disk array can hold 3.6TB (300gb x 12 slots); At 2U per array, you can fit 22 of these into a typical 77-inch datacenter rack. That's over 79TB per rack. In eight racks you've got your target.

The above assumes that data integrity and disk MTBF is a priority, thus FC-AL disks are assumed (SCSI at least). But if you just need a huge short-term data dump location with no regard for MTBF, 750GB SATA disks are widely available now... the same 2U JBOD config now yields 9TB per array, and 198TB per rack... I can fit those 3 racks in my bedroom

I often remind ppl who still are on the whole "government has a supercomputer that has a computer file on EVERYONE in the country!!!1!11" bit that three pages of plain text is only 3k. Let's even assume a jpeg picture to go with the file makes it 50k per person. Thats still only 15TB worth of data on 300 million people. A few ambitious ATOTers could handle this, no sweat (if they delete all their pr0n). :laugh: Maybe I'm unimpressed because I'm around a lot of enterprise-level production gear.

But I digress. One thing I won't contest is the cost of such a storage setup. At least tens of thousands of dollars to get it all set up and cabled, possibly eclipsing low six figures. And that says nothing of the monthly power bill... ahh the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: AStar617

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: OSx86
600 Terabytes seems kind of low for a "US military computer place" IMO. Seems high to us, but they probably back up all their data many, many times

Well, it's only one office within a much larger complex. I honestly don't know if I can say which office, which is why I'm being so vague.

Heh, No Such Agency, I'd bet.

And really, this isn't that major at all if you think about it. a typical enterprise-class 2U SCSI/FC-AL disk array can hold 3.6TB (300gb x 12 slots); At 2U per array, you can fit 22 of these into a typical 77-inch datacenter rack. That's over 79TB per rack. In eight racks you've got your target.

The above assumes that data integrity and disk MTBF is a priority, thus FC-AL disks are assumed (SCSI at least). But if you just need a huge short-term data dump location with no regard for MTBF, 750GB SATA disks are widely available now... the same 2U JBOD config now yields 9TB per array, and 198TB per rack... I can fit those 3 racks in my bedroom

I often remind ppl who still are on the whole "government has a supercomputer that has a computer file on EVERYONE in the country!!!1!11" bit that three pages of plain text is only 3k. Let's even assume a jpeg picture to go with the file makes it 50k per person. Thats still only 15TB worth of data on 300 million people. A few ambitious ATOTers could handle this, no sweat (if they delete all their pr0n). :laugh: Maybe I'm unimpressed because I'm around a lot of enterprise-level production gear.

But I digress. One thing I won't contest is the cost of such a storage setup. At least tens of thousands of dollars to get it all set up and cabled, possibly eclipsing low six figures. And that says nothing of the monthly power bill... ahh the gift that keeps on giving.

Nope, not NSA.

Since you're "in the business" -- what would a large data center have in terms of capacity? I can't even fathom an example or a specific company.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Nope, not NSA.

Since you're "in the business" -- what would a large data center have in terms of capacity? I can't even fathom an example or a specific company.

Newshosting.com currently has 200TB.

 

[phisrow]

Do you work for the "State Department" by any chance?

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Does enterprise storage use different hard drives, or are they just large arrays of the stuff we mere mortals use?

They could use Fibre Channel drives if MTBF is a priority.

Fixed. Speed is no longer the true determining factor, as consumer/prosumer-level SATA disks with features like 10k spindle speeds, 300mb/s bus speeds, and Native Command Queueing often come close enough to SCSI/FC in performance to make the severe price markup for the latter seem unjustified.

However, what most people *don't* know is that disk manufacturers use a process very similar to that of chip manufacturers. You know how everyone knows that CPUs are progressively tested at lower and lower speeds until they are shipped labeled as a speed they didn't fail testing at? Platters that meet the most stringent testing go into FC-AL disks; those that fail are retested at a lesser spec for use SCSI disks; those that fail yet again are retested at a still lesser spec for use in SATA disks.

This is one of the reasons that, for as much as I love them and their products, Apple won't be taken seriously anytime soon in a datacenter--their only storage offering is SATA and they have been vocal about distancing themselves from the "complexity" of FC. No reputable vendor would ever seriously suggest committing mission-critical production data to SATA disks long-term. Check out Sun's suggestions for its StorEdge 3511FC SATA JBOD array:

Key Applications

* Backup and restore (read: on a short-term basis, temporarily dump a filesystem snapshot here as scratch space to do live backups without affecting production, then erase)
* Data life cycle management (read: on a longer-term basis, store the data you kinda still care about, but don't really care about anymore here)

Just some food for thought.

 

[everman]

Didn't one agency recently purchase a lot of solid state storage?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: AStar617

Key Applications

* Backup and restore (read: on a short-term basis, temporarily dump a filesystem snapshot here as scratch space to do live backups without affecting production, then erase)
* Data life cycle management (read: on a longer-term basis, store the data you kinda still care about, but don't really care about anymore here)

Just some food for thought.

EMC has a software package called DiskXtender that will move the data that is not used as often to the cheaper SATA drives.

 

[DaWhim]

google uses PT

 

[DaWhim]

that's WEAK.

check out google:

The extended Googleplex comprises an estimated 200 petabytes of hard disk storage ? enough to copy the Net's entire sprawling cornucopia dozens of times ? and four petabytes of RAM. To handle the current load of 100 million queries a day, its collective input-output bandwidth must be in the neighborhood of 3 petabits per second.

source

 

[biggestmuff]

Andrew, which site is it? Is it one of the new APCs?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Baked
I have more porn than that.

QFT

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: AStar617

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: OSx86
600 Terabytes seems kind of low for a "US military computer place" IMO. Seems high to us, but they probably back up all their data many, many times

Well, it's only one office within a much larger complex. I honestly don't know if I can say which office, which is why I'm being so vague.

Heh, No Such Agency, I'd bet.

And really, this isn't that major at all if you think about it. a typical enterprise-class 2U SCSI/FC-AL disk array can hold 3.6TB (300gb x 12 slots); At 2U per array, you can fit 22 of these into a typical 77-inch datacenter rack. That's over 79TB per rack. In eight racks you've got your target.

The above assumes that data integrity and disk MTBF is a priority, thus FC-AL disks are assumed (SCSI at least). But if you just need a huge short-term data dump location with no regard for MTBF, 750GB SATA disks are widely available now... the same 2U JBOD config now yields 9TB per array, and 198TB per rack... I can fit those 3 racks in my bedroom

I often remind ppl who still are on the whole "government has a supercomputer that has a computer file on EVERYONE in the country!!!1!11" bit that three pages of plain text is only 3k. Let's even assume a jpeg picture to go with the file makes it 50k per person. Thats still only 15TB worth of data on 300 million people. A few ambitious ATOTers could handle this, no sweat (if they delete all their pr0n). :laugh: Maybe I'm unimpressed because I'm around a lot of enterprise-level production gear.

But I digress. One thing I won't contest is the cost of such a storage setup. At least tens of thousands of dollars to get it all set up and cabled, possibly eclipsing low six figures. And that says nothing of the monthly power bill... ahh the gift that keeps on giving.

Nope, not NSA.

Since you're "in the business" -- what would a large data center have in terms of capacity? I can't even fathom an example or a specific company.

Hundreds of terabytes is not at all uncommon. Here are some of the largest contiguous databases in the world as of 2005-- and none of the datasets are likely approaching the capacity of the aggregate storage anytime soon (you need good ROI if you're shelling out that much cash).

Petascalar storage (thousands of terabytes/millions of gigabytes) is still the realm of unique distributed supercomputer clusters (like the "Googleplex", as linked above), but not far off at all...sixteen packed racks? Nevertheless, that I still consider impressive.

 

[Yomicron]

600TB isn't a whole lot. A single StorageTek Powderhorn tape library (~100 sq ft) can hold 1.2PB.

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: Yomicron
600TB isn't a whole lot. A single StorageTek Powderhorn tape library (-100 sq ft) can hold 1.2PB.

I'd hate to see the random access time on that setup :laugh: I think OP was referring to live data storage, not archival. But yeah, there are some crazy tape silos out there. Small wonder the STK headquarters in Broomfield CO is/was located on...

...(wait for it)...

..."Tape Drive". :laugh:

 

[uhohs]

if i had 600tb i would download 1tb a month.

 

[MichaelD]

*shrug* It's semi-impressive. For Joe Average home user, a 120GB drive is huge and he'll never fill it up.

I built a HTPC for somone and it had 2TB of storage; the guy is still in the process of ripping his DVDs to it.

At work, we back up 1.8TB a day. Monthly backups are almost 6TB. 600TB is ok...but it's not "Whoa." Now, should be cross into the Petabyte realm, that'll be "Whoa!"

 

[gentobu]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Nope, not NSA.

Since you're "in the business" -- what would a large data center have in terms of capacity? I can't even fathom an example or a specific company.

Is it for the Air Intelligence Agency? If it is I'm guessing the storage is for satellite imagery of some sort.

 

[Kanalua]

Rumsfield severance package?

 

[swtethan]

1200 computers with 500GB HD

 

[talyn00]

600TB isn't that much. However if you're talking about 600 TB for a branch office then its probably fairly large for the type office.

 

[nsafreak]

600 TB isn't that much. Local company here by the name of Galileo International measures their amount of storage in either petabytes or exobytes.

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
600 TB isn't that much. Local company here by the name of Galileo International measures their amount of storage in either petabytes or exobytes.

Shens on the last part... the world's largest supercomputers/clusters are still in single-digit petabytes or just scratching double-digits. I can say with 100% certainty that there's at most one contiguous (i.e., not including the storage space on all employees' desktops) exascale storage implementation in the world... and if so, it sure ain't at Galileo.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Does enterprise storage use different hard drives, or are they just large arrays of the stuff we mere mortals use?

It's probably a handful of these.