Slashdot Mirror
Bulk Data Storage For The Common Man?
Vigyaan writes "Lately, I have been looking into different bulk data storage options available to a common man. My work
depends on generating, storing and analyzing a
large amount of data -- averaging about 1 TB per
month. I would like to have a storage system which is automated, fast, reliable
and most importantly does not cost the price of an
eye. Right now, I have a 4 node Linux cluster with
10 large hard disks (total capacity 1.6 TB); data storage roughly costs
about $0.60/GB (excluding the cost of PC
hardware). But long term storage is painful -- DVDs
cost about $0.10-$0.15/GB but takes too much human time
and leaving data on hard disks makes me nervous
because of possible failures. RAID is a possibility, but it increases the cost significantly. I was wondering, if
Slashdot readers have any recommendations for a
cheap automated way to store and retrieve data."
I'll send you a couple.
http://www.fsckin.com/
You're always going to get a better rate with Hard drives but you're going to be prone to failure.
If you buy them in bulk you can save.
Burning DVDs is going to take you forever and drive you nuts.
Find a hotswappable set of drives and use that for your offline backups. Use a raid for your current backups.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
PRINTSCREEN should do the trick.
Logic, macros, and more
For long term storage, how do you feel about firewire drives? Maybe not as cheap as you'd like, but you can get them in >160 gig flavors, plus you can hook them up to just about anything. Once you do the backup, which'd be a simple copy and paste, you can just unplug the drive and store it in a safe or something.
Again, I'm not sure if that's as cheap as you'd want, but that's a solution I came up with for a similar problem. My company's going to be 3D rendering some stuff that could end up eating 50 megabytes a frame. (Extra data is stored for future refinement... I can go into detail if I've piqued anybody's curiosity.) We can't afford to lose this data, so the Firewire drive approach is what we're considering right now.
"Derp de derp."
I was wondering, if Slashdot readers have any recommendations for a cheap automated way to store and retrieve data."
Although the good ones don't come cheap. I guess this another case of "pick any two."
KFG
Short of launching his own space probe, the only way for this guy to consume a TB a month of storage is a serious porn habit. Just post your 'content' on Edonkey and it will be available when you 'need' it. You likely only watch them once anyway.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Buy some inexpensive IDE drives with high storage capacity and use a software raid solution. What kind of budget do you have anyway?
Ahh the large amount of data that has X value versus a storage solution...
If your data is worth $20,000.00 then a $2000.00 solution is dirt cheap.
what is your data worth? that is where you need to start and then look at the 10-30% of the data's value to start looking at how must to spend on it's storage.
If 1 month's data was lost forever, how much money would it cost the company? that is your actual $ amount that you should be shopping at.
and that is how I got the company to buy a $20,000.00 1000 tape DLT jukebox.
my data is worth over $100,000 a month and is much lower than yours is size.
That is where you need to start. Justify your storage costs by figureing out what it is worth to begin with.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Look for an LTO gen 1 or SDLT220/320 on ebay, with a SCSI connection (some of them are fibre, and I assume you don't want to go there!). Don't forget to pick up some tapes. In general, this sounds like it would work if you plan on doing this for a while, and can leverage the initial investment over months or years.
Capacities are (for the cost of a sub $50 tape):
- LTO1: 100 GB uncompressed
- LTO2: 200 GB uncompressed
- SDLT220: 110 GB uncompressed
- SDLT320: 160 GB uncompressed
If your data is particularly ammenable to compression (i.e. database data) you could easily get 3 or 4 to 1 compression with these drives without sinking your CPU utilization.
because it protects against device failure, not *user* error. if you delete a file from a raid array, it's gone. that's part of what offline is all about.
eric
i am responsible for providing storage solutions for a mid-sized content creation company which, through version archiving, accumulates near 1-200 GB per day. they require access to their media backups on a rolling basis, so tapes are not an option.
i have found that a Teutonium cluster of 6.5 TB Spongedrives (either Cray or SecreTech are fine) fits the bill nicely. housed in a 15-unit rack server, the amoeba-shaped drives utilize BioLas technology to store data on 6-dimensional Moebius Cilia for a slick seek time of 0.00 ms.
a cluster costs about $45,000 USD but the price should come down in 2004 Q4 when SecreTech launches their new 40-platter blackholium SCSI's.
If I could make this sig kill you, I would.
All forms of media/backups have their own drawbacks... but some aren't as bad as others, and the others often are more accessable.
;-)
Tape: Tapes break, they wear, they have dropouts, take a while to back everything up, can't always access files if you just want to restore something (Different methods vary, folks)... but ultimately, it's cheap when you use DAT because they're a common media. Swap the tapes twice as often (and throw old ones out) if you're paranoid about tape related failures.
Hard Drive: Most common form of backup I see now, mainly for the 1:1 size factor. Yeah, drives fail, too. Sometimes you have a pretty good warning when this is going to happen, sometimes you don't. (My 13GB Maxtor and 40GB IBM Deathstar drives both went *pfft* on reboot.) Get enough of them at once, you could swap out the logic boards if one does fry out. Ultimately, RAID or just simple 1:1 mirroring is probably the most efficient and easy method. Accessing bits and pieces is also easiest under this method. I personally just use an external USB2 case with a 120GB drive in it. Everything I want to back up goes on that drive, and then eventually... DVDRs. I turn off the drive when I don't need it... hopefully prolonging the life of it when I need it most.
DVDR: Not anymore. If we had these new-fangled DVDR discs (+ or -) say... when 2 to 6GB drives were common.... sure... But in addition to hard drives, recovering selective files is easy under this method too... Unless you use a backup program that crunches everything together on the disc in some spanning format. Burn times can be tedious... but it's not bad if you consider the overall amount of data you're putting on the disc. Cheaper than quality-brand name CDRs, though, in terms of price per mega/gigabyte. Only an idiot would trust $0.01-per-disc spindles for long-term backups. Even the longevity of DVDR has yet to be seen...
CDR: I'm not going to bother.
Network: Well, still relies on hard drives and other components... but good if you don't want to saddle one room with a ton of boxes. Simply for space and efficiency... external drive is probably better anyway.
Old fashioned method: Print everything out and keep it in a filing cabinet somewhere. You could always OCRA the stuff later.
The drive will run about $4000, but the tapes are only around $0.20/GB assuming a 1.5:1 compression ratio. And keeping that assumption, 1 TB of data should only take 3 200 GB native tapes per month, so swapping wouldn't be so bad with the single tape drive. An autoloading library would be significantly more expensive, but if you really need automation, that's the way to go.
I use bioneural gel packs at a cost of $0.04 per teraquad. What is this hard drive of which you speak?
... and program it as a repeater.
It's about 90 minutes away, so at 250 Kbps that's over one terabit in storage on the way out there, and another terabit on the way back.
Worst-case access latency is about three hours, though. Maybe the hard disks are a better idea.
If you send your probe^H^H^H^H^H repeater to Alpha Centauri, you'll get more than 20,000 times the storage capacity.
Build yourself a cluster of cheap boxes with cheap IDE disks and replicate your data across them. Because the data is replicated across your cluster, no need for backups or RAID.
So, you can put your data on 4-5 HD's, 10 tapes or 232 DVD's per month. The Cost of doing so will be about $500 per month for the tapes or HD's and $50 for the DVD's (assuming your time cost $0)
At work, we had a need to keep a few TB of data online permanently, so we purchased a few NexSAN ATABeast's. At $50,000 for 10TB of usable storage ($5/GB), they may be a bit out of your price range. The advantage is that you can hold almost a years worth of data and it is protected by RAID5. It also makes management a lot easier, since it is very difficult to mount 42 300G drives in a single chassis (and it takes only 4U of rack space).
On the low end, NexSAN has the ATABoy2 or ATABaby (2TB or 1TB) for the $8-$15K range. This will let you hold a months worth of data
On the high end, You have EMC disk arrays (Think upwards or $20+/GB for the 'cheap' stuff from them.
Overall, if you have 1TB per month, you need to either a) get a grant to fund your work, b) hire somebody to swap DVD's for you or b) seriously rethink your data generation.
Any of the "cheap" storage methods have serious drawbacks, and the low cost ones are, well, not so low cost if $15,000 sounds like a lot of money to you.
otherwise, good luck
If you are more interested in volume than speed, then the emphasis should be on the 'ID' part of RAID. Inexpensive Disks. If you used 160GB Drives, which appear to have the best bang for your buck at the moment, and put 6 (yes 6!) in a pc. Just use any old cheap pc (I use 200-400Mhz PII)
:-)
Run the disks RAID 5 and you will get about 800GB of storage for $600 . Now get two cheap ata100 cards so you have a total of 6 channels, and mount each drive as a master on each channel. Build a 2gb root partition on the first disk (mirror it if you want) and then set the rest of the space up as a huge raid 5 array.
Et Voila cheap, big server. To archive data, turn off pc, and throw into attic
No figures, but I think the opposite. I've had several DVD-R disks which I've written backups to only to discover that they are unreadable a year later. My personal experience has been that HD's are unreliable, but less unreliable than writable DVDs.
Of course higher quality media might be better, but then you can no longer quote the $0.10/GB figure.
depending on the value of your data, you should try having a nice 4*400Go SATA in raid 5 *2, possibly using a distributed file system for redundancy...
/. story on a rackable Petabyte storage system
Not the cheapest, but fast, simple and saves you the unholy pleasure of having 2-3 DLT boxes to archive/cycle each month...
You already have a linux cluster, so implementing a distributed file system, or even simply a nightly incremental mirror to the target server if you can afford losing one day work/computation...
It would help if you told us what sort of data you work with... from databases and to automated telescope tracking system, both need large amount of storage, but you won't need the same system array for each...
I seem to remember a
You don't need to go to the Petabyte capacuty but you will find some interesting comments on filesystems, disk virtualisation, 1U rack providers and so on....so a 1 Terabyte rack server is definetly possible...
Good luck...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Only on Slashdot would they start talking about huge storage arrays and title it "for the common man"
Now call me crazy, but have folks completely forgotten the age old solution, TAPE? A SDLT tape goes for about $50 and holds about 320GB, LTO holds even more, and I believe Quantum has just released the latest generation of SDLT. While its not "cheap" an autoloader can be had for about $15,000 that can backup many TB hands off. Might be a bit much initially, but it the best solution long term
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Google stores data for fast access, not for reliable storage. They don't care if they lose a few hundred gigs when a handful of disks die, they'll just re-spider it in a few days when the Googlebot hits the sites which were lost. Their solution is NOT optimized for reliable storage and it's not suited in the slightest to this guy's problem.
I'm just curious, do you have any idea how much data 1 Terabyte is? Are you suggesting that he PRINT it?
Let's say for the sake of argument that all 256 bytes can be printed as a visibly distinguishable character, or that he's got 1TB of plaintext. Also assume you can fit 10,000 characters on a 8 1/2 by 11 page.
You can fit 10^4 bytes per page, and you need to print 10^12 bytes (I know, it's actually 2^120, but that needlessly complicates the math, so shush)
That means you will need 10^12 bytes / 10^4 bytes/page = 10^8 pages.
One hundred million pages. Assuming he has a good laser printer with infinite toner, let's say he can print 60 ppm or one page per second. It would take one hundred million seconds to print the data, which is 1157 days, or a little over 3 years.
Given that he generates 1TB per month, I think this backup plan would probably become the top agenda item of most of the anti-deforestation groups out there.
Random and weird software I've written.
Come on, this is Slashdot. A tape changer doesn't have to cost that much money if it's make of lego (shamelessly pulled from an earlier slashdot story which I can't find at the moment).
I looked through some of the answers here, and as near as I can tell, you've got a bunch of home hobbyists telling you how to back up your home computers. Perhaps all your needs entail is a computer with an external IDE drive array and 4-10 200G SATA drives in it. But from your initial post, it's not clear what you need your offline storage _for_.
First of all, you mention that you generate and use 1G of data a month. What happens at the end of that month? Does all of the data become useless? Is some of it carried through? Is it useful for historical processing for some time after it's not "live" any more? The disposition of that offline data is important; you can't determine how you can most effectively back up your data until you know what you need to do with that data once it's backed up.
Since no one cares about backing up old data that they never use any more, I'm going to assume you need this data in some form in the future. I'm also assuming that your data ages out completely every month.
Realistically, you have two options: Large redundant disk arrays, or tape. Various factors give credence to one or the other.
First of all, get off of the SATA hacks, and realize you're going to need to go to SCSI, whether you end up with disk or tape. You're backing up data, you're going ot want it to be reliably written out, and SCSI is the de facto standard for backup architecture. Yes, you pay more for it, but there's a reason for it: the SCSI equipment I manage at work fails a fraction of the percentage of time that the various IDE/ATA systems fail. While SATA is marketed as a consumer technology, it will never meet the rigors of being a reliable backup methodology.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U