 |
 |
Related to our discussion: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125139942345664387.html I particularly like the quote at the end: > "Digital information lasts forever -- or five years," says RAND Corp. > computer analyst Jeff Rothenberg, "whichever comes first." Tim McGeary Team Leader, Library Technology Lehigh University 610-758-4998 [log in to unmask] Google Talk: timmcgeary Yahoo IM: timmcgeary Edward Iglesias wrote: > Thanks to all of you who answered. Crowdsourcing does work if you > pick the right crowd. We have been looking at the S3 possibility but > I agree this would have to be a second copy. The policy and > institutional support comments from my tokayo > > see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tocayo > > seem especially appropriate. I am going to include a link on our > staff blog to this thread as a resource. > > Thanks again, > > Edward Iglesias > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Edward M. > Corrado<[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> 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 >>> >