Slashdot Mirror


Petabyte Storage Array

knight13 writes "Engadet is reporting that EMC is rolling out a petabyte RAID array. From the article, "And if you're ready for that level of storage, there's now someplace to get it: EMC has launched its first petabyte array, a version of the company's flagship Symmetrix DMX-3 system that includes nine room-filling cabinets of drives." The price? A mere $4 million."

7 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Heh by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was just thinking about how 4 years ago you could build a terabyte array for about $5-10,000 down from many millions 8 years ago. Today, you can get a terabyte for less than $500. In a few years, a petabyte is only going to cost $5,000. If you just buying space for future growth, it seems like a total waste of money.

  2. Failure rate by joNDoty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's assume for a moment that the average lifetime of one hard disk in this petabyte array is 6.5 years. Since there are 2,400 hard drives, that means that once this thing has been running for a while, you will be replacing, on average, one broken hard drive per day, for the entire lifetime of the array. That's about $350 per day in replacement parts alone!

    1. Re:Failure rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, it doesn't work like that. When you buy an array like (esp. from EMC) you buy a _service plan_ to go with it.

      You pay $xxx,xxx.xx up front for a years service. The EMC arrays call home when a drive is getting ready to die (i.e. well before there is _any_ data loss) and EMC sends a tech onsite. The drive is swapped out and you as the customer notice absolutely nothing, except a line in the security log where the tech showed up at the datacenter.

  3. Re:Kinda Interesting by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the man has 50 Terabytes of critical data that he needs to backup and ship every day, I'd say he probably has a budget that could accomidate one of these things. While multi-terabyte arrays are more common than they once were, anyone carrying around that much data still needs to spend millions just to keep their infrastructure intact.

    Now all he's got to do is get his boss to sign the check. :-P

  4. Re:Kinda Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually this solution is pretty cheap. If you look at a system with a 3ware card (12 port) you can get the cost per TB to about $1700. That way you would need 500 of them. (Each system has 12 400G drives. RAID 5 loose 2 per system to stay under 2TB.) Cost would be roughly $1.7M. This does not include networking or racks, etc.

    Thus 2x that cost is pretty good and you get a better package.

    I agree, there would be a lot of people who would still build there own, but this is getting very close.

    Oh industries who would like this. Medical (these guys create 10x the data that nuclear physics creates), oil and gas, rendering (data duplication to reduce hot spots), disk backups (as mentioned before), call centers with large db (almost anyone now days), financial industry. Really with a solution like this, you can also branch out with other filesystem and access patterns to your computers (lustre and gpfs).

  5. Re:A petabyte of pr0n by Compuser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I pity you.

  6. Re:Kinda Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
    However, I doubt they'll sell many of these. The only places I can think of that would benefit from this are supercomputing institutes, but they often build their own redudant RAID systems and/or NAS systems.
    I suspect the marketing strategy is to sell the smaller versions of the system - the petabyte version is just an assembly of modular components.
    It's nice and all, but seriously people, who's the audience?
    For the full meal deal? Probably nobody - but it makes a hell of an advertisement for the smaller systems in the same product line.