LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  August 2009

CODE4LIB August 2009

Subject:

Re: digital storage

From:

"Edward M. Corrado" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:59:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (142 lines)

Joe Atzberger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>   
>> Nate Vack wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Ryan Ordway<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> $213,360 over 3 years
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>  If you're ONLY looking at storage costs, SATA drives in enterprise RAID
>>>       
>>>> systems range from about $1.00/GB to about $1.25/GB for online storage.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Yeah -- but if you're looking only at storage costs, you'll have an
>>> inaccurate estimate of your costs. You've got power, cooling, sysadmin
>>> time, and replacements for failed disks. If you want an
>>> apples-to-apples comparison, you'll want an offsite mirror, as well.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying S3 is always cost-effective -- but in our experience,
>>> the costs of the disks themselves is dwarfed by the costs of the
>>> related infrastructure.
>>>
>>>  I agree that the cost of storage is only one factor. I have to wonder
>>>       
>> though, how much more staff time do you need for local storage than cloud
>> storage? I don't know the answer but I'm not sure it is much more than
>> setting up S3 storage, especially if you have a good partnership with your
>> storage vendor.
>>     
>
>
> Support relationships, especially regarding storage are very costly.  When I
> worked at a midsize datacenter, we implemented a backup solution with
> STORServer and tivoli.  Both hardware and software were considerably
> costly.  Initial and ongoing support, while indispensable was basically as
> much as the cost of the hardware every few years.
>   
They can be depending on what you are doing and what choices on software 
you make, but for long term preservation purposes they don't have to be 
nearly as expensive as what Ryan calculated S3 to cost. If you shop 
around you can get a quality 36GB array with 3 yr warranty for say 
$30,000 that is almost $180,000 less than S3 (probably much less, I'm be 
less than generous with my Sun discounts and only briefly looked at 
there prices). Even if we use the double your cost for support, it is 
still over $50,000 a year less for 3 years. Yes, we might need some 
expertise, but running a 36TB preservation storage array is not a 
$50,000 a year job and besides, what is wrong with growing local expertise?

...
>> Yes, maybe you save on staff time patching software on your storage array,
>> but that is not a significant amount of time - esp. since you are still
>> going to have some local storage, and there isn't much difference in staff
>> time in doing 2 TB vs. 20 TB.
>>     
>
>
> There's a real difference.  I can get 2 TB in a single HDD, for example this
> one for $200 at NewEgg:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148413
> <http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148413>
>
> Any high school kid can install that.  20 TB requires some kind of
> additional structure and additional expertise.
>   
Well building a 20 TB storage device and getting it to work can actually 
be very cheap and doesn't require a PhD (just a local GNU/Linux geek who 
likes to play with hardware) if you are OK with a home grown solution. I 
wouldn't be satisfied with that, but I don't see how a commercial 
offering that adds up to $150,000 worth of expertise and infrastructure.

> You may some time on the initial configuration, but you still need to
>   
>> configure cloud storage. Is cloud storage that much easier/less time
>> consuming to configure than an iSCSI device? Replacement for disks would be
>> covered under your warranty or support contract (at least I would hope you
>> would have one).
>>     
>
>
> Warranties expire and force you into ill-timed, hardly-afforded and
> dangerous-to-your-data upgrades.  Sorta like some ILS systems with which we
> are all familiar.
Yes some application upgrades can cause issues, but how is that 
different if your application and/or storage is in a  cloud?

>   The cloud doesn't necessarily stay the same, but the part
> you care about (data in, data out) does.
>   
How do you know they won't change their cloud models? And you don't even 
have a warranty with the cloud. They won't even guarantee they won't 
delete your data.

As long as you use a common standards based method of storage, you won't 
have any more issues getting it to work than you will getting future 
application servers to work with the cloud. While I'm not a huge fan of 
NFS I've been using it for many years with no problems due to changes in 
NFS or operating systems or hardware. NFS has been available to the 
public for about 20 years. Occasionally you may need to migrate it from 
one platform or one machine to another but you very well need to do that 
with clouds as well. Maybe you are using S3 but for whatever reason Sun 
gives you a better deal with better terms and guarantees for using their 
cloud. Maybe Amazon drops S3. Maybe because S3 moves servers to a 
country that you are not legally allow to have your data in.  Yes, you 
have to plan for migration to new platforms but I fail to see how you 
don't need to do that with the cloud. Really any major technological 
decision should have an exit plan. Preservation storage is not different 
in that and the cloud doesn't change that.

Edward


>> The power and cooling can be a savings, but in many cases the library or
>> individual departments don't pay for electricity, so while *someone* pays
>> the cost, it might not be the individual department. Cooling and electricity
>> costs are an actually a great argument for tape for large-scale storage.
>> Tape might seem old fashioned, but in many applications it by far offers the
>> best value of long term storage per GB.
>>     
>
>
> It's true, tape is still an worthwhile option. Alternatives like optical or
> magneto-optical media just have not kept up.
>
> Again, I'm not totally against the cloud and there are some things I think
>   
>> it could be very useful for, but the cloud doesn't make up for the lack of
>> (or just bad) planning.
>>     
>
>
> Yeah, there's no system good enough to compensate for bad planning and
> management.
> --Joe
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager