Toshiba has started mass production of 24nm NAND cells. Just saying... Intel and Micron are already at 25nm in their most recent production lines, Hynix at 26nm. Only Samsung, albeit the world's first NAND manufacturer, seems to be at 27nm.
That's a great idea, too many people know how to use computers, as per your current ICT program, but don't really understand them. I was planning to start with a PC building workshop, because it's easier to relate what you learn to a physical object. Bringing a dismantled cheap PC, showing around the components and explaining their role, then building the PC together. Building a modded custom PC would be even better, with a laser-etched logo of the school on the side panel and a good paint job. I don't think you can convey the same notions or expect kids to memorize them if you are using only textbooks.
Then start on the software part, showing the need for higher level languages than binary and 8086 machine languages (start with the usual joke "there are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't").
Your ICT program seems to leave out programming completely, so introducing algorithms and programming concepts would be great indeed. The Towers of Hanoi is for instance a classical fun puzzle to solve via software and introduce recursivity. Or the Urinal Problem! ^-^ Again, applied learning might work better than just theoretical notions. Kids at your school would probably have many ideas of small applications that are feasible to develop within a year. Or take inspiration from movies, for instance try to reproduce the school grade hacking in War Games.
The way you're concerned with ICT learning, I'm sure we'll soon see even better generations of Indian IT engineers soon!
It needs some motion detectors on both sides to start the video call automatically when both sides are active and you're set. The Asus AiGuru SV1T just wouldn't work for this purpose, you need a real screen and good sound so that any member of the family can approach the screen and start speaking to dad or dad speaks to the family, no handheld device. You can use the remote monitor to leave text, audio or video messages visible to the whole family, or use it for any normal "kitchen" use, such as Internet recipe lookup, shopping lists, tasklists, digital post-its, online radio, music, TV, you can even use it at the office during the lunch break, etc. Sounds like there is a potential for a great app.
I don't see anything creepy with this kind of application, and you can always stop the program if necessary, or mute the sound on any side. The only "creepy" thing is that most people talk to the screen, not the camera, so until some manufacturer comes with a monitor with a camera embedded within the screen, you will always have this unfocused side look that is slightly creepy when you talk to a person.
Yeah! I knew there had to be a simple solution to the antenna problem: No more signal dropping for me since Papermaster was fired! Just don't hold your iPhone the way Apple held to Papermaster and you'll be fine. I was in a dilemma: Should I download more signal or an iBumper? No need now, Steve Jobs fixed it again!
I think "Hide Empty Drives" is the default option in Windows 7, but it did nothing for the 5 drives from my multi-card reader. I had to disable manually the drivers for the drives I don't use to stop them from being displayed in Windows Explorer.
First place to start is listing the stuff you own. I have mine on a Google Docs spreadsheet, with tabs to categorize it. I can access it even if my computer gets stolen. This will be useful for the insurance. Insurance won't replace anything, just pay you some, so prevention and common sense is really the key: Securing the points of entrance, adding deterrents such as cameras and sirens, neighborhood watch, random lights and music, not publishing when you're going to vacations in the social sites, having your mail redirected or picked up, having a large mailbox big enough for parcels, automated shutters, etc.
Store your documents offline, like a scan of your passport and important papers. Digitalize as much as you can: I have ripped all my CDs and have a backup at my family's. I started ripping my DVDs too, although it's too big for backups. But at least I won't lose too much if someone steals my CDs or DVDs. Try to rip the most valuable ones, or the rarest.
It's really too bad that with all the technology around, there is no world standard for home automation and security. It makes the whole thing far too complex to setup for the average joe.
Lol at all those who keep repeating dogs and guns, like the former is an option in an apartment, or like the latter is useful when you're away to anything else but getting your gun stolen too.
I suppose you are referring to the Seagate Barracuda 1.5 and 2TB disks built in China which experience all of DOA, infant and teenage mortality.
The ones built in Taiwan, especially the enterprise-level XT version with 64MB of cache don't have this problem. Interesting customer comments on newegg about this issue. That 2TB drive is twice more expensive at $200, but that's still 12 times cheaper than the $650-700 required for a 500-600GB SAS or SSD drive.
RAID 10? I wouldn't use anything less safe than RAID 6/60 for my precious data. Hot spares are great and work fine for RAID 5/50, I am still trying to find out if Adaptec RAID controllers manage hot spares in RAID 6/60. They are less important since RAID 6 allows 2 simultaneous drive failures, but still, at a cost of only a $200 disk, it saves a lot of technician time.
They actually have only 2-3 such boards, so we're not there yet. You don't need SSD disks for the caching, the cache is on board, but I just checked, it's a ridiculous 4GB for an extra $330 compared to the non-SSD cache model. So it's more like $83/GB.
4GB is what you get on hybrid SATA/SSD disks, so I guess it is not adequate for a RAID controller that can handle 256 disks.
I've read some people are starting to mix SATA and SSD: SATA arrays for backups, documents storage, etc., and SSD arrays for high IOpS data such as database read/write transactions.
Since SAS and SSD disks are basically the same price, $1.2/GB for SAS and $1.4/GB for SSD, with SSD prices dropping continuously, no mechanical parts, pure NAND memory speed, mixing SATA and SSD arrays makes sense, and you can drop global storage prices a lot with the SATA arrays.
Still, the lack of SATA III controllers, the small size of the SSD cache, and the few glitches with SSD drives after many write operations would make me wait until these issues are resolved.
Wow, where do you come up with $8.6/GB? Hitachi's 300GB SAS disks are about $350, so that's $1.2/GB raw.
If you are talking usable space, say you have 10 disks per shelf combined in RAID 6, that's 7 usable disks, 2 for data parity, 1 as hot spare. Add another shelf for backup, that's still only $3.3/GB with RAID redundancy, backup and hot spares (probably removing another $19.5/GB from the lines for backup disk, DR backup disk, DR disk, DR backup disk, and the tapes, that really don't scale for big datacenter. $3500/TB tape "software"?
SATA III enterprise-level disks have the same 64MB cache as SAS disks and will probably have about the same IOPS once SATA III RAID controllers come along, plus controllers already use SSD caching for even better performance, so the cost of the same configuration as above is only $0.2/GB, for 14TB of usable space in 1 shelf, compared to 2.1TB with the Hitachi SAS disks.
Now that SSD is starting to mature, I think SAS SANs are doomed. SAS will never reach the same performance and reliability as SSD (no mechanical parts) for the same price. Even now, SSD raw disk cost is $1.4/GB ($700/512GB) compared to SAS $1.2/GB.
It's $11K for 90TB using 2TB disks at $200 each. More like $40-50K with power, human resources and real estate included. You need 11 of these to make 1PB, about $120K for the hardware, $0.5M everything included, 12 cents/GB for the hardware only indeed, but 50 cents/GB all included.
@zonky, it's raw storage prices but the cost will not change because of network or backup. If you want these figures, consider that you don't have 11 usable enclosures, but 2 sets of 5 mirrored enclosures or 3 sets of 3-4 main, mirror, and backup enclosures for the same price/TB. Power for 1PB costs less than $4K/year at 11 cents/WH for the disks only, the servers probably add $2K, and you need only minimal A/C in this range.
Mirror and backup is the way to go, not a waste. The article talks about the waste that would be if each of your 100TB arrays were using only 20-50TB and the full 100TB wasn't planned to be reached before, say 5 years.
I know the agencies can decrypt anything they want to for standard SSL encryption, and probably will if you're red-flagged somehow, but if I understand this article correctly, they can't make legal use of this information without a formal NSL letter first, right?
In that case, if I am using, say https Gmail, can the ISP technically answer such a NSL letter? The Google IP address is visible in the TCP/IP headers, but isn't the sender and recipient name and IP hidden behind SSL? Or are the senders and recipients visible because Gmail is using POP4 or whatever protocol that the ISP can read?
$30/GB/month, now I know you work at Microsoft! ^-^ I think this was about the same outrageous cost of storage in the corporate datacenter farm 2 years ago, although there were also different cheaper options for larger storage needs. And there was also a one-time setup fee before even the monthly bills...
So I made a proposal for our own department for a 8TB storage solution, consolidating several smaller file servers into one (plus another for the backup) with this DAS enclosure: http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sata_enclosures/scsat84xt.asp Cost was about $6K for the 2 enclosures, 2 RAID SATA controllers and 18 1TB Adaptec drives. The servers were scavenged, the OS and backup software was for free, the set up was also provided by us for free. This was a one-time cost for less than a week of what the IT department would bill us, and zero hassle compared to all the paperwork required to fill in such a request, which basically forces you to overestimate the storage space need, as you don't want to repeat this horrific experience. Maintenance was supposed to be minimal, the disks were configured in RAID 6 to allow for 2 simultaneous drive failures, we had also planned for a couple of spare disks already mounted in spare trays to quickly hot-swap failed ones. Basically maintenance was required only to restore the backups or specific files to an earlier restore point in case of data corruption.
You might get a problem with corporate policies that require the use of the centralized datacenter. I left that department shortly after my proposal, don't think it went anywhere. I'd make the same proposal today, except that, if the storage need requires it, I'd probably get 16-drive DAS towers or rackmounts with 2TB disks (just 8 disks is a waste for RAID 6), about $6K for 28TB of usable space out of 32TB raw space, plus another 28TB for the backup server set in a separate location.
It's quite bad that the $1M / 100TB cost is not detailed in any way in this article, it makes all attempts of comparison futile and impossible. Thankfully several commenters provided their input, some even mentioning billing $5M per 100TB to their lawyers customers.
My guess is that this $1M represents partially the costs of the hardware/software configurations in existing datacenters, with most of these possibly purchased 2 years ago. 2 years is a pretty long time in IT, with many technological and financial changes, such as SATA III, 2TB disks and SSD, the latter still being rather immature and expensive.
Given the relatively low cost of the hardware, it does make sense to implement a better aggregation/allocation infrastructure, and disconnect the unused servers, but keep them on hold to add extra storage in a moment's notice, or to scavenge spare hard disks. They won't cost a dime if they are plugged but powered off, it's the online storage and maintenance that costs $1M/100TB (if that much.)
That's not how I read the article, it describes datacenters with 40-60% of unused space, I think the goal if to reduce this to something like 20%. If you manage 10PB at 50% usage, you can reduce it to 6PB at 20% usage, thus saving $40M (at $1M/100TB.)
Hopefully SSD disks will relieve RAM, once the market becomes mature and cheaper at even higher densities. $3000 for a 1TB SATA II drive is a little bit excessive... ^-^
The article's focus is more about datacenters reducing their unused space from say 40% to 20% for petabytes of storage. You're dead if you let unused space down to 5%, let alone 1%. Even home users get red flags when their disks go below 10% of free space.
You can't rely on the OS and extra storage space to fully restore deleted files, the OS can reallocate that space at any time. It's just pure luck each time if you can, although I agree extra space increases your chances.
You should rely on your backups and maybe custom scripts to trap all file delete requests at low level instead, but I don't even know if that's feasible. That would be totally rad!
Adding more servers is wasteful only if you have poor storage management. If you need more space, you should be able to just add a new server and allocate that extra space to the customers who need it, or not allocate anything at all and bill the customers for the actual space/transfer used or for the extra TBs above their quota. You probably don't even need quotas at all with a smart storage management software.
It comes up to $45K/90TB tops, in just one 4U enclosure, management overhead and real estate included. ($50K/100TB) To answer @spazimodo, the Taiwan-built Barracuda XT disks have low failure rates compared to the Seagate disks built in China, and you can combine them in RAID 6 or 60 with Adaptec controllers for $1-2K more. Why would you ever use RAID 5 anyway, that's insane. We're talking raw storage here, so backup hardware, snapshots, replication are exactly the same as the 1M/100TB raw space estimate. If you want real usable space data all costs included, get 2 such servers, let's say at $50K each with RAID 6 controllers and fiber optics cluster connection. That's 74TB of usable space, plus another 74TB on the backup clustered server, or $135K/100TB usable space. Even a backblaze enclosure comprised exclusively of SSD disks for performance would cost only $72K per enclosure, hardware and 1st year costs included, about $640K/100TB. But I assume this level of performance is far above the $1M figure, assumedly for SAS disks, and which also probably spreads out the hardware cost onto 3 years, so it's more like $0.5M for pure SSD 100TB. It would really help if the article would detail that $1M cost.
SSD costs assuming 256GB disks @ $700 each. 1 backblaze 4U server would provide only 11TB of SSD raw space, 9TB of usable RAID 6 space.
Slashdot Mirror
Toshiba has started mass production of 24nm NAND cells. Just saying...
Intel and Micron are already at 25nm in their most recent production lines, Hynix at 26nm.
Only Samsung, albeit the world's first NAND manufacturer, seems to be at 27nm.
That's a great idea, too many people know how to use computers, as per your current ICT program, but don't really understand them. I was planning to start with a PC building workshop, because it's easier to relate what you learn to a physical object. Bringing a dismantled cheap PC, showing around the components and explaining their role, then building the PC together. Building a modded custom PC would be even better, with a laser-etched logo of the school on the side panel and a good paint job. I don't think you can convey the same notions or expect kids to memorize them if you are using only textbooks.
Then start on the software part, showing the need for higher level languages than binary and 8086 machine languages (start with the usual joke "there are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't").
Your ICT program seems to leave out programming completely, so introducing algorithms and programming concepts would be great indeed. The Towers of Hanoi is for instance a classical fun puzzle to solve via software and introduce recursivity. Or the Urinal Problem! ^-^ Again, applied learning might work better than just theoretical notions. Kids at your school would probably have many ideas of small applications that are feasible to develop within a year. Or take inspiration from movies, for instance try to reproduce the school grade hacking in War Games.
The way you're concerned with ICT learning, I'm sure we'll soon see even better generations of Indian IT engineers soon!
It needs some motion detectors on both sides to start the video call automatically when both sides are active and you're set.
The Asus AiGuru SV1T just wouldn't work for this purpose, you need a real screen and good sound so that any member of the family can approach the screen and start speaking to dad or dad speaks to the family, no handheld device.
You can use the remote monitor to leave text, audio or video messages visible to the whole family, or use it for any normal "kitchen" use, such as Internet recipe lookup, shopping lists, tasklists, digital post-its, online radio, music, TV, you can even use it at the office during the lunch break, etc. Sounds like there is a potential for a great app.
I don't see anything creepy with this kind of application, and you can always stop the program if necessary, or mute the sound on any side.
The only "creepy" thing is that most people talk to the screen, not the camera, so until some manufacturer comes with a monitor with a camera embedded within the screen, you will always have this unfocused side look that is slightly creepy when you talk to a person.
Yeah! I knew there had to be a simple solution to the antenna problem: No more signal dropping for me since Papermaster was fired!
Just don't hold your iPhone the way Apple held to Papermaster and you'll be fine.
I was in a dilemma: Should I download more signal or an iBumper? No need now, Steve Jobs fixed it again!
Don't hide the empty drives globally, just disable the drivers for the drives you don't use. That should solve your problem.
I think "Hide Empty Drives" is the default option in Windows 7, but it did nothing for the 5 drives from my multi-card reader.
I had to disable manually the drivers for the drives I don't use to stop them from being displayed in Windows Explorer.
First place to start is listing the stuff you own. I have mine on a Google Docs spreadsheet, with tabs to categorize it. I can access it even if my computer gets stolen.
This will be useful for the insurance. Insurance won't replace anything, just pay you some, so prevention and common sense is really the key:
Securing the points of entrance, adding deterrents such as cameras and sirens, neighborhood watch, random lights and music, not publishing when you're going to vacations in the social sites, having your mail redirected or picked up, having a large mailbox big enough for parcels, automated shutters, etc.
Store your documents offline, like a scan of your passport and important papers. Digitalize as much as you can: I have ripped all my CDs and have a backup at my family's. I started ripping my DVDs too, although it's too big for backups. But at least I won't lose too much if someone steals my CDs or DVDs. Try to rip the most valuable ones, or the rarest.
It's really too bad that with all the technology around, there is no world standard for home automation and security.
It makes the whole thing far too complex to setup for the average joe.
Lol at all those who keep repeating dogs and guns, like the former is an option in an apartment, or like the latter is useful when you're away to anything else but getting your gun stolen too.
Excellent!
Why don't we just do like we always do: Instead of cleaning up the place, move Earth to a less cluttered location in space?
I suppose you are referring to the Seagate Barracuda 1.5 and 2TB disks built in China which experience all of DOA, infant and teenage mortality.
The ones built in Taiwan, especially the enterprise-level XT version with 64MB of cache don't have this problem. Interesting customer comments on newegg about this issue. That 2TB drive is twice more expensive at $200, but that's still 12 times cheaper than the $650-700 required for a 500-600GB SAS or SSD drive.
RAID 10? I wouldn't use anything less safe than RAID 6/60 for my precious data. Hot spares are great and work fine for RAID 5/50, I am still trying to find out if Adaptec RAID controllers manage hot spares in RAID 6/60. They are less important since RAID 6 allows 2 simultaneous drive failures, but still, at a cost of only a $200 disk, it saves a lot of technician time.
* Sorry, "Adaptec", not "Adapter"
http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware
They actually have only 2-3 such boards, so we're not there yet. You don't need SSD disks for the caching, the cache is on board, but I just checked, it's a ridiculous 4GB for an extra $330 compared to the non-SSD cache model. So it's more like $83/GB.
4GB is what you get on hybrid SATA/SSD disks, so I guess it is not adequate for a RAID controller that can handle 256 disks.
I've read some people are starting to mix SATA and SSD: SATA arrays for backups, documents storage, etc., and SSD arrays for high IOpS data such as database read/write transactions.
Since SAS and SSD disks are basically the same price, $1.2/GB for SAS and $1.4/GB for SSD, with SSD prices dropping continuously, no mechanical parts, pure NAND memory speed, mixing SATA and SSD arrays makes sense, and you can drop global storage prices a lot with the SATA arrays.
Still, the lack of SATA III controllers, the small size of the SSD cache, and the few glitches with SSD drives after many write operations would make me wait until these issues are resolved.
SAS is doomed!
Try Adapter SAS/SATA RAID controllers with SSD caching, SSD disks are about $7/GB, so the cache are probably in that range too, not $2,000/GB.
Wow, where do you come up with $8.6/GB?
Hitachi's 300GB SAS disks are about $350, so that's $1.2/GB raw.
If you are talking usable space, say you have 10 disks per shelf combined in RAID 6, that's 7 usable disks, 2 for data parity, 1 as hot spare. Add another shelf for backup, that's still only $3.3/GB with RAID redundancy, backup and hot spares (probably removing another $19.5/GB from the lines for backup disk, DR backup disk, DR disk, DR backup disk, and the tapes, that really don't scale for big datacenter. $3500/TB tape "software"?
SATA III enterprise-level disks have the same 64MB cache as SAS disks and will probably have about the same IOPS once SATA III RAID controllers come along, plus controllers already use SSD caching for even better performance, so the cost of the same configuration as above is only $0.2/GB, for 14TB of usable space in 1 shelf, compared to 2.1TB with the Hitachi SAS disks.
Now that SSD is starting to mature, I think SAS SANs are doomed. SAS will never reach the same performance and reliability as SSD (no mechanical parts) for the same price. Even now, SSD raw disk cost is $1.4/GB ($700/512GB) compared to SAS $1.2/GB.
It's $11K for 90TB using 2TB disks at $200 each.
More like $40-50K with power, human resources and real estate included.
You need 11 of these to make 1PB, about $120K for the hardware, $0.5M everything included, 12 cents/GB for the hardware only indeed, but 50 cents/GB all included.
@zonky, it's raw storage prices but the cost will not change because of network or backup. If you want these figures, consider that you don't have 11 usable enclosures, but 2 sets of 5 mirrored enclosures or 3 sets of 3-4 main, mirror, and backup enclosures for the same price/TB.
Power for 1PB costs less than $4K/year at 11 cents/WH for the disks only, the servers probably add $2K, and you need only minimal A/C in this range.
Mirror and backup is the way to go, not a waste.
The article talks about the waste that would be if each of your 100TB arrays were using only 20-50TB and the full 100TB wasn't planned to be reached before, say 5 years.
I know the agencies can decrypt anything they want to for standard SSL encryption, and probably will if you're red-flagged somehow, but if I understand this article correctly, they can't make legal use of this information without a formal NSL letter first, right?
In that case, if I am using, say https Gmail, can the ISP technically answer such a NSL letter?
The Google IP address is visible in the TCP/IP headers, but isn't the sender and recipient name and IP hidden behind SSL?
Or are the senders and recipients visible because Gmail is using POP4 or whatever protocol that the ISP can read?
$30/GB/month, now I know you work at Microsoft! ^-^
I think this was about the same outrageous cost of storage in the corporate datacenter farm 2 years ago, although there were also different cheaper options for larger storage needs. And there was also a one-time setup fee before even the monthly bills...
So I made a proposal for our own department for a 8TB storage solution, consolidating several smaller file servers into one (plus another for the backup) with this DAS enclosure: http://www.pc-pitstop.com/sata_enclosures/scsat84xt.asp
Cost was about $6K for the 2 enclosures, 2 RAID SATA controllers and 18 1TB Adaptec drives. The servers were scavenged, the OS and backup software was for free, the set up was also provided by us for free. This was a one-time cost for less than a week of what the IT department would bill us, and zero hassle compared to all the paperwork required to fill in such a request, which basically forces you to overestimate the storage space need, as you don't want to repeat this horrific experience. Maintenance was supposed to be minimal, the disks were configured in RAID 6 to allow for 2 simultaneous drive failures, we had also planned for a couple of spare disks already mounted in spare trays to quickly hot-swap failed ones. Basically maintenance was required only to restore the backups or specific files to an earlier restore point in case of data corruption.
You might get a problem with corporate policies that require the use of the centralized datacenter. I left that department shortly after my proposal, don't think it went anywhere.
I'd make the same proposal today, except that, if the storage need requires it, I'd probably get 16-drive DAS towers or rackmounts with 2TB disks (just 8 disks is a waste for RAID 6), about $6K for 28TB of usable space out of 32TB raw space, plus another 28TB for the backup server set in a separate location.
It's quite bad that the $1M / 100TB cost is not detailed in any way in this article, it makes all attempts of comparison futile and impossible.
Thankfully several commenters provided their input, some even mentioning billing $5M per 100TB to their lawyers customers.
My guess is that this $1M represents partially the costs of the hardware/software configurations in existing datacenters, with most of these possibly purchased 2 years ago.
2 years is a pretty long time in IT, with many technological and financial changes, such as SATA III, 2TB disks and SSD, the latter still being rather immature and expensive.
Given the relatively low cost of the hardware, it does make sense to implement a better aggregation/allocation infrastructure, and disconnect the unused servers, but keep them on hold to add extra storage in a moment's notice, or to scavenge spare hard disks. They won't cost a dime if they are plugged but powered off, it's the online storage and maintenance that costs $1M/100TB (if that much.)
That's not how I read the article, it describes datacenters with 40-60% of unused space, I think the goal if to reduce this to something like 20%.
If you manage 10PB at 50% usage, you can reduce it to 6PB at 20% usage, thus saving $40M (at $1M/100TB.)
Hopefully SSD disks will relieve RAM, once the market becomes mature and cheaper at even higher densities.
$3000 for a 1TB SATA II drive is a little bit excessive... ^-^
The article's focus is more about datacenters reducing their unused space from say 40% to 20% for petabytes of storage.
You're dead if you let unused space down to 5%, let alone 1%. Even home users get red flags when their disks go below 10% of free space.
You can't rely on the OS and extra storage space to fully restore deleted files, the OS can reallocate that space at any time.
It's just pure luck each time if you can, although I agree extra space increases your chances.
You should rely on your backups and maybe custom scripts to trap all file delete requests at low level instead, but I don't even know if that's feasible. That would be totally rad!
60 watts? A 2TB performance SATA III drive (not the "green" low power drives) is about 8W (6 on idle, 9 on load).
So that's 8x24*365 = 70KW, more like $6.
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/internal-storage/barracuda-xt-kit/#tTabContentSpecifications
Anyway, the cost of the hardware is almost zero compared to the other costs, except is you use SAS or SSD drives.
Adding more servers is wasteful only if you have poor storage management.
If you need more space, you should be able to just add a new server and allocate that extra space to the customers who need it, or not allocate anything at all and bill the customers for the actual space/transfer used or for the extra TBs above their quota. You probably don't even need quotas at all with a smart storage management software.
I used that backblaze analogy too, but after yours, @ano:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1735418&cid=33075574
It comes up to $45K/90TB tops, in just one 4U enclosure, management overhead and real estate included. ($50K/100TB)
To answer @spazimodo, the Taiwan-built Barracuda XT disks have low failure rates compared to the Seagate disks built in China, and you can combine them in RAID 6 or 60 with Adaptec controllers for $1-2K more. Why would you ever use RAID 5 anyway, that's insane. We're talking raw storage here, so backup hardware, snapshots, replication are exactly the same as the 1M/100TB raw space estimate. If you want real usable space data all costs included, get 2 such servers, let's say at $50K each with RAID 6 controllers and fiber optics cluster connection. That's 74TB of usable space, plus another 74TB on the backup clustered server, or $135K/100TB usable space.
Even a backblaze enclosure comprised exclusively of SSD disks for performance would cost only $72K per enclosure, hardware and 1st year costs included, about $640K/100TB. But I assume this level of performance is far above the $1M figure, assumedly for SAS disks, and which also probably spreads out the hardware cost onto 3 years, so it's more like $0.5M for pure SSD 100TB. It would really help if the article would detail that $1M cost.
SSD costs assuming 256GB disks @ $700 each. 1 backblaze 4U server would provide only 11TB of SSD raw space, 9TB of usable RAID 6 space.