Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Cleversafe Announces 10 Exabyte Storage System Configuration

Last response: in News comments
Share
January 28, 2012 3:11:09 PM

Now how much processing power would it take to analyze that much data? I also wonder what's the power consumption, and the cost of the construction/maintenance of the system.

Score
4
January 28, 2012 3:12:00 PM

Was that necessary?
Score
-3
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 28, 2012 3:28:07 PM

^^^ No kidding. Hey we just demonstrated proof-of-concept for a system that aids federal government surveillance with the potential to profit from it is a near certainty. I wonder how many cloud options out there are just as ready to assist the feds but aren't so blatant about it. In other news damage control in Thailand is still underway.
Score
7
January 28, 2012 3:57:01 PM

Quote:
What could you do with so much storage?

back up the Internet? just sayin'...
Score
21
January 28, 2012 4:02:48 PM

greghomeHow much would all those Hard Drive weigh?


Surely less than Abrahams tank... and supporting all the *paranoid* comments on government control, more effective...

OK, both drive density and bus / network speed increase make it possible for that amounts of info, and this is quite a recent achievement, but remember that just going the huge way "a lo grande" is not a problem for the government...
Score
-6
Anonymous
a b G Storage
January 28, 2012 4:15:25 PM

I found the reason for the hard drive shortage.
Score
23
Anonymous
a b G Storage
January 28, 2012 4:34:12 PM

10 Exabytes (EB), or 1,000 Petabytes (PB).

:facepalm:
Score
19
January 28, 2012 4:42:54 PM

Pretty crazy to think back in 1996 the Internet was estimated to be just under 2TB in total size and the largest storage farm in the world was about 75TB. Now we have a single storage solution that is 14,288,400 TB.
Score
10
January 28, 2012 4:53:26 PM

all eggs in one basket. hmm...
Score
9
January 28, 2012 5:03:58 PM

greghomeHow much would all those Hard Drive weigh?

probably using Ultrastar 7K3000 3TB SAS HDD's so, 690gr each.

But I don't get the numbers.
"21 storage and network racks that include 189 storage nodes of 45 x 3 TB drives to offer a total storage capacity of 25,515 TB. The current configuration also includes 35 PDs per site (893,025 TB) and 16 sites total (14,288,400 TB with more than 4.7 million drives total). In total, Cleversafe offers about 13.6 EB of storage."
so: 21racks X 189 nodes X 45 drives X 16 sites = 2857680 HDD's X 3TB = 8,573,040 TB ?

anyway 13.6 EB = 14 260 633.6TB that's 4753548,2 3TB drives X 690gr = 3279948258grams = 3 279 948.26kg = 3 615.5 tons


COST?
370$ per drive. ofc if you buy thousands price per unite will be much much lower. But then you have to had the infrastructure cost and such which costs even more. But let's calc per drive.
$370 X 2857680 HDD's = $1,057,341,600

running costs
720hours per month
average power consumption per drive 8.25W
Electricity per KWH USA average $0.125

2857680 HDD's X 8.25W X 720h X $0.125 per KWH = $2,121,828 per month


comparative with SSD's:
a 3TB drive has an average power consumption of 8.25W. That's 3TB. for example a 300gb (highest capacity intel 710 enterprise SSD) has an average of 2.2W. so 3TB in SSD's would actually spend more watts then HDD's. 22W vs 8.25W.


When SSD's hit a capacity/performance per watt much better then HDD's they will be massively adopted by datacenters. Demand for SSD's will be insane. More fabs have to be built, much more offer, much more nand memory, prices will sink.
Score
18
January 28, 2012 5:06:08 PM

Melchior10 Exabytes (EB), or 1,000 Petabytes (PB).

Yes, it's kinda sad no one else caught that. It's even worse that the author didn't catch it, but somehow it doesn't surprise me. 1 EB = 1000 PB.
Score
8
January 28, 2012 5:28:18 PM

serendipitiSurely less than Abrahams tank...

Try again!
An Abrams tank weights 68 tons (62 metric tons).

There are 45 HDD per nodes, 189 nodes per PD, there are 35 PDs per site and 16 sites. So, that works out to 4,762,800 HDDs (45 x 189 x 35 x 16).

As Sigma3 quoted above the weight of single Ultrastar 7K3000 3TB SAS HDD is 690gr.

So, the HDDs would weight 3,286,332 KGs (7,245,121 Pounds) or 3,286 Metric Tons (3,622 US Tons).

That means that the HDDs would weight the equivalent of 53 Abrams tanks!!!

Score
9
January 28, 2012 5:37:22 PM

__-_-_-__...But I don't get the numbers."21 storage and network racks that include 189 storage nodes of 45 x 3 TB drives to offer a total storage capacity of 25,515 TB. The current configuration also includes 35 PDs per site (893,025 TB) and 16 sites total (14,288,400 TB with more than 4.7 million drives total). In total, Cleversafe offers about 13.6 EB of storage."so: 21racks X 189 nodes X 45 drives X 16 sites = 2857680 HDD's X 3TB = 8,573,040 TB ?...


The correct math is:

45 HDD per nodes x 189 nodes per PD x 35 PDs per site x 16 sites.

So, that works out to 4,762,800 HDDs (45 x 189 x 35 x 16) x 3TB per HDD = 14,288,400 TB

Score
4
January 28, 2012 5:41:55 PM

yorgosback up the Internet? just sayin'...

echelon
Score
-3
January 28, 2012 5:52:02 PM

dragonsqrrlYes, it's kinda sad no one else caught that. It's even worse that the author didn't catch it, but somehow it doesn't surprise me. 1 EB = 1000 PB.

i did too catch it
Score
-4
January 28, 2012 6:04:50 PM

__-_-_-__comparative with SSD's:a 3TB drive has an average power consumption of 8.25W. That's 3TB. for example a 300gb (highest capacity intel 710 enterprise SSD) has an average of 2.2W. so 3TB in SSD's would actually spend more watts then HDD's.

No no no... See, you're considering a set of 300GB SSDs. They'll obviously have a higer power consumption, just like 2 500GB drives consume more power than a single TB drive.

SATA based SSDs usually wont have a max power of more than 5w (considering there are many i haven't seen, i'm estimating 5w).

So something like that chiron 4TB SSD wouldn't consume any more power than a HDD.
Score
0
January 28, 2012 6:10:41 PM

could use the storage to make a world record for having 13EB of porn
Score
0
January 28, 2012 6:45:41 PM

Umm... My internet too slow to need that much storage. At 512 kbps, I wonder how many generations it would take to fill that much storage.
Score
1
January 28, 2012 7:00:56 PM

mikewongUmm... My internet too slow to need that much storage. At 512 kbps, I wonder how many generations it would take to fill that much storage.

Let's do the math...

10 EB = 10,000 PB = 10,000,000 TB = 10,000,000,000 GB = 10,000,000,000,000 MB

512Kb/s = 64KB/s @ 86,400 sec/day = 5,529.6 MB/day @ 365.25 day/year = 2,019,686.4 MB/year

10 EB (10,000,000,000,000 MB) / 512Kb/s (2,019,686.4 MB/year) = 4,951,263.7 years!
Score
5
January 28, 2012 7:43:51 PM

dhruvddWas that necessary?


I bet your PC has 640KB memory :D 
Score
-1
January 28, 2012 7:48:23 PM

May be all the porn ever made would fit on there. If it would then somebody probably already has that much storage in his basement and garage.
Score
-2
January 28, 2012 9:20:04 PM

i wonder how long it 'd take b4 this kind of storage become standard in a way smaller form factor of course
maybe when we reach the technology after QFHD
Score
1
January 28, 2012 9:33:21 PM

Imagine finding a failing drive...
Score
5
January 28, 2012 10:26:09 PM

Image having that much storage in your pocket
Score
1
January 29, 2012 12:26:23 AM

And why would anyone need that much storage?
Score
0
January 29, 2012 12:28:32 AM

JamesSneedPretty crazy to think back in 1996 the Internet was estimated to be just under 2TB in total size and the largest storage farm in the world was about 75TB. Now we have a single storage solution that is 14,288,400 TB.

And now you can buy 2TB hard drives for just $150.... dang... It's hard to believe my 2TB external hard drive can store a backup of the internet in 1996.
Score
1
January 29, 2012 1:40:15 AM

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, the world’s largest index of the Internet, estimated the size of internet at roughly 5 million terabytes of data. That’s over 5 billion gigabytes of data, or 5 trillion megabytes. Schmidt further noted that in its seven years of operations, Google has indexed roughly 200 terabytes of that, or .004% of the total size.

World of Warcraft uses 1.3 petabytes of storage to maintain its game.
AT&T transfers about 19 petabytes of data through their networks each day
Google processes about 24 petabytes of data per day
As of May 2009, the size of the world's total digital content has been roughly estimated to be 500 Exabytes

1,0000PB is really huge. this is only used by mass surveillance systems.
Score
1
January 29, 2012 2:04:45 AM

Not enough space for my porn.
Score
-3
January 29, 2012 2:20:41 AM

yorgosback up the Internet? just sayin'...

How much of it NEEDS backing up? Have you ever clicked on some of these absolutely retarded links found in some of your Google searches? What a waste of space.
Score
0
January 29, 2012 2:39:49 AM

wouldnt it be a misnomer when it actually have limits
Score
0
January 29, 2012 2:49:52 AM

livebriandAnd now you can buy 2TB hard drives for just $150.... dang... It's hard to believe my 2TB external hard drive can store a backup of the internet in 1996.

I can believe that.
Score
-2
January 29, 2012 4:10:57 AM

Well I learned a new word for the day. Never knew (or needed to know) what came after petabyte until now. Also, I may just be reading it wrong but the article subtitle seems to state that 10 Exabytes = 1,000 Petabytes but this is incorrect. An exabyte is 10^18th power bytes and a petabyte is 10^15th power bytes. So an exabyte is 1,000 petabytes and 10EB would be 10,000 PB.

Oh and btw, couldn't help looking up what comes after exabyte... 1,000 exabytes is a Zettabyte (ZB) and 1,000 ZB is a Yottabyte. I wonder how long until Moore's law predicts my cellphone will have a Yottabyte of storage on a nanoSD card smaller than a pencil eraser.
Score
0
January 29, 2012 4:43:01 AM

face-plants said:
Well I learned a new word for the day. Never knew (or needed to know) what came after petabyte until now. Also, I may just be reading it wrong but the article subtitle seems to state that 10 Exabytes = 1,000 Petabytes but this is incorrect. An exabyte is 10^18th power bytes and a petabyte is 10^15th power bytes. So an exabyte is 1,000 petabytes and 10EB would be 10,000 PB.

Oh and btw, couldn't help looking up what comes after exabyte... 1,000 exabytes is a Zettabyte (ZB) and 1,000 ZB is a Yottabyte. I wonder how long until Moore's law predicts my cellphone will have a Yottabyte of storage on a nanoSD card smaller than a pencil eraser.



Your right about 10 Exabytes != 1,000 Petabytes.... course a few of us already noticed. See Melchior's post earlier and is has a few thumbs up. His post wasnt so descriptive well other than a facepalm but we all took that as yeah somone missed a zero.

As far as a Yottabyte in a cell phone, not going to happen. Your talking storage densities way sub atomic. In theory if we could get down to atomic densities like DNA we could store 250 Terabits per square inch take or give a little for how close you could pack the atoms. Cell phones won't exist by the time we could store a Yottabyte in a square inch or two if that is ever a possibility.
Score
2
January 29, 2012 5:31:39 AM

Finally we can safely create an offline archive of all the porn in the world....at least half of it :) 
Score
-2
January 29, 2012 11:40:03 AM

Not counting the porn the internet is about 3.5 TB. No worries about the porn, it's all backed up and safe in bomb proof subterranian bunkers in Iran.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b G Storage
January 29, 2012 4:51:28 PM

"i wonder how long it 'd take b4 this kind of storage become standard in a way smaller form factor of course maybe when we reach the technology after QFHD"

Well ~20 years ago my computer had a 80 meg hard drive, today we have 4 terabyte drives.

If we continue at the same rate, in another 20 years we should be at roughly 200PB. Need another factor of 50 on top of that, if we double every 1.5 years and round up thats about 10 years.

So, roughly 30 more years till we have 10EB desktop drives. Assuming we dont run into any road blocks or make any leaps along the way!
Score
0
January 30, 2012 10:21:26 AM

caparcMay be all the porn ever made would fit on there

Don't forget all the pictures of cute kittens
Score
0
January 30, 2012 12:39:50 PM

mrmaiaNow couple that article with http://www.tomshardware.com/pictur [...] e-sas.html and you imagine how HUGE this beast is.

Unfortunately, the article is about another big storage solution. The pics show 8 nodes in a rack, the Cleversafe solution has 9 nodes per rack (189 nodes / 21 racks = 9 nodes/rack).
Score
0
January 30, 2012 1:59:56 PM

ParrLeyneUnfortunately, the article is about another big storage solution. The pics show 8 nodes in a rack, the Cleversafe solution has 9 nodes per rack (189 nodes / 21 racks = 9 nodes/rack).


Sorry for not making my point clear. The provided link shows pics for a SINGLE PB of storage. 14,288,400 of them should be enormous, no matter what's the node density. Got it now?
Score
0
January 30, 2012 3:14:41 PM

But can it play crysis?
Score
-3
January 30, 2012 4:43:10 PM

dhruvddWas that necessary?


The new ACTA regulations say it is a must....
Score
0
January 30, 2012 8:28:39 PM

Man, that's a LOT of pron storage.
Score
0
!