Well 10TB is rather small and can easily be filled up, so you need the low usage rate, but for datacenters with petabytes of storage space, which are what the article is mostly about, you can aggregate the unused space, remove some, and increase the global usage rate quite a lot, while still allowing for huge increase of storage usage from many of your customers or departments. Compared to the whole capacity of the datacenter, these increases are rather diluted to small percentages.
These expensive solutions are probably the reason why the analyst mentions saving $1M for each 100TB removed. With 4U enclosures like backblaze's, you get 90TB for $11K of hardware and $6K (45 disks @ 8WH) of power usage per year. An IT operator can control dozens of such enclosures, let's say a conservative 2 dozens. So $160K salary / 24 enclosures is $7K. Add $7K for a full time dev and custom storage management software, and $14K for management (still for 24 enclosures). That's still about $45K for 90TB all included, exactly 20 times less than the mentioned $1M for 100TB.
A new Windows rewritten from scratch would really help a whole new class of efficient and reliable embedded and consumer systems, maybe an OS that would make multiplatform programming easier too (developing apps simultaneously for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.)
But that would be a tremendous job, you'd basically need to rewrite from scratch all the applications and especially the developers' tools. Even then devs would need a lot of training about the changes and new features offered by the new OS, how to port their existing apps, etc. All software companies would need to adapt too. Not too sure we'll find many supporters for this cause.
Thanks, @Ano. I know where the citations were from, I was merely asking @Liquidrage to make his post more readable. For the same amount of letters, "CNET:" would be more understandable than "FFTA:" incorrectly spelled, confidential and cryptic FTFA acronym. Acronyms are evil!
And yet another hate comment... No need to insult people, and don't forget that not everybody is a native English speaker who can easily understand that FFTA stands for FTFA, which is a stupid acronym anyway. "Farking", really?
Yes, I know, you also wrote the correct spelling in the first instance, but I didn't see both had different spellings, and when I tried to understand that "FFTA", I thought maybe it was the name of the blogger or site you referred to, hence my natural question for sources.
And none of the excerpts you mentioned earlier are taken from the article's "damn summary", they are from one of the 3 links in the article (CNET). Anyways, I just wanted to react when you defended burst.net by saying their decision was an "honest mistake", it was a mistake indeed, but there is nothing "honest" in it, their official statement says that it was a conscious decision. I don't think such a professional business would kill a whole blogging platform without due consideration of all the implications.
Where I "fail?" Quit trolling if you have nothing else to do but insult people and read their comments without understanding them. But if you're only spamming the board with ads for your own 404-ridden commercial web site in your signature, or if you work for burst.net, feel free to keep replying.
Of course burst.net has all the "rights" to take down blogetery for any reason, thanks to their meaningless cover-my-arse contract. I was merely stressing ("legal as in...") that they volunteered to do it, they were not requested to do so by a legal order or government agency, unlike what they pretended when they first answered blogetery: "Bn.xx*********** was terminated by request of law enforcement officials"
In that sense they abused their powers and the trust relationship with their customers.
Source links? The only "mistake" made was when an employee inadvertently let out that it was a "federal matter", when he was not supposed to tell that much. Burst.net official statement states that the take down was a conscious decision made after reviewing the blogs referenced by the FBI, not an "honest mistake": https://www.burst.net/news/blogetry.shtml
Plus I wonder how happy the FBI is with burst.net's decision and all the publicity: It might have wanted to infiltrate the terrorist blog(s) or at least track which IPs were posting or commenting on it. The FBI was only asking burst.net who the blogetery owner was.
"(D) Offensive or Objectionable Material. BurstNET reserves the right to request you remove any material which BurstNET deems offensive, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable. Failure to do so may result in blocking your site or termination of the Agreement by BurstNET Services."
In that case, blogetery was not even given the chance to delete the offending blog(s). Even if burst.net gives itself all powers (basically making the whole contract a total joke), it was 1) not legal (as in "required by a legal court order or Patriot Act request") for burst.net to take down the site, 2) a partial breach of 4.5 and Exhibit B (D) of the contract, and 3) a totally stupid act to take down 73,000 blogs when only a couple were being investigated by the FBI.
Burst.net should get all the blame and bad publicity it deserves for such an outrageous act. The whole blogosphere is posting comments asking everybody to stop working with burst.net, I totally agree.
I second that. At least for some Asus mobos, they have near perfect audiophile sound. Currently listening to a Lúnasa lossless wma rip ("Iúil : Frailock") on a Sennheiser HD 650 plugged directly into the mobo, it's pure pleasure. Same with good USB Logitech speakers and woofer, the sound is huge and clean at the highest volume level.
Burst.net clearly takes no account of its own contract if it does not consider his customers responsible for handling the situation: Paragraph 4.5 states: "Client shall be solely responsible for all content available on or through its site"
Many commenters said that burst.net had no choice in the matter, but I beg to differ. Burst.net should have redirected the FBI to the rightful contact, the owner of blogetery. Many also accuse affiliateplex of having broken the law. If so, Facebook and Google Blogger have broken the law thousands of times for child porn. Were they shut down? Of course not, only the individual illegal/infringing blogs were shut down, not the whole service. Others also say affiliateplex should monitor every post in every blog he hosts. What a stupid nonsense. Again, Facebook and Blogger don't monitor their blogs. Instead, they have a "Report this blog" button for readers to signal potentially illegal blogs. Only then do they take action to verify if the claim was justified.
I really feel sorry for affiliateplex, he certainly did not deserve both the shutdown of his hosting site and the hate comments, and he has all my sympathy and support.
I still don't understand why the FBI did not ask directly blogetery to shut down the couple of blogs involved, and why burst.net chose to shut down blogetery instead of forwarding the FBI request to them. It does not make sense and seems to be a very bad decision from burst.net. As well ask Verizon or AT&T to cut the Internet cables powering burst.net.
Besides, it's only blogetery who knows the IPs of these blogs, not burst.net.
Or am I missing something? The FBI did not seem to have contacted blogetery owner at all, as he stated in the previous article that the shutdown might have been caused by copyright infringement. He obviously had not clue why his blog hosting site was shut down.
Geez, not only has slashdot home page the worst display design for articles, baring maybe The Register, but its design for comments are even worse. Somebody knows a way to expand all the abbreviated comments?
Slashdot Mirror
Well 10TB is rather small and can easily be filled up, so you need the low usage rate, but for datacenters with petabytes of storage space, which are what the article is mostly about, you can aggregate the unused space, remove some, and increase the global usage rate quite a lot, while still allowing for huge increase of storage usage from many of your customers or departments. Compared to the whole capacity of the datacenter, these increases are rather diluted to small percentages.
Not really. Google designs and builds their own servers.
The "super expensive storage solutions" are for suckers.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
These expensive solutions are probably the reason why the analyst mentions saving $1M for each 100TB removed.
With 4U enclosures like backblaze's, you get 90TB for $11K of hardware and $6K (45 disks @ 8WH) of power usage per year.
An IT operator can control dozens of such enclosures, let's say a conservative 2 dozens. So $160K salary / 24 enclosures is $7K.
Add $7K for a full time dev and custom storage management software, and $14K for management (still for 24 enclosures).
That's still about $45K for 90TB all included, exactly 20 times less than the mentioned $1M for 100TB.
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
I replaced the 1.5TB disks with Seagate Barracuda XT SATA 6Gb/s 2TB disks at $200 on newegg in this computation.
Seagate's other models built in China have lots of problems that the XT doesn't seem to have.
A new Windows rewritten from scratch would really help a whole new class of efficient and reliable embedded and consumer systems, maybe an OS that would make multiplatform programming easier too (developing apps simultaneously for Windows, Mac OS and Linux.)
But that would be a tremendous job, you'd basically need to rewrite from scratch all the applications and especially the developers' tools. Even then devs would need a lot of training about the changes and new features offered by the new OS, how to port their existing apps, etc. All software companies would need to adapt too. Not too sure we'll find many supporters for this cause.
*you => read @Liquidrage
Thanks, @Ano. I know where the citations were from, I was merely asking @Liquidrage to make his post more readable.
For the same amount of letters, "CNET:" would be more understandable than "FFTA:" incorrectly spelled, confidential and cryptic FTFA acronym.
Acronyms are evil!
And yet another hate comment... No need to insult people, and don't forget that not everybody is a native English speaker who can easily understand that FFTA stands for FTFA, which is a stupid acronym anyway. "Farking", really?
Yes, I know, you also wrote the correct spelling in the first instance, but I didn't see both had different spellings, and when I tried to understand that "FFTA", I thought maybe it was the name of the blogger or site you referred to, hence my natural question for sources.
And none of the excerpts you mentioned earlier are taken from the article's "damn summary", they are from one of the 3 links in the article (CNET). Anyways, I just wanted to react when you defended burst.net by saying their decision was an "honest mistake", it was a mistake indeed, but there is nothing "honest" in it, their official statement says that it was a conscious decision. I don't think such a professional business would kill a whole blogging platform without due consideration of all the implications.
Where I "fail?"
Quit trolling if you have nothing else to do but insult people and read their comments without understanding them. But if you're only spamming the board with ads for your own 404-ridden commercial web site in your signature, or if you work for burst.net, feel free to keep replying.
Of course burst.net has all the "rights" to take down blogetery for any reason, thanks to their meaningless cover-my-arse contract.
I was merely stressing ("legal as in...") that they volunteered to do it, they were not requested to do so by a legal order or government agency, unlike what they pretended when they first answered blogetery: "Bn.xx*********** was terminated by request of law enforcement officials"
In that sense they abused their powers and the trust relationship with their customers.
Source links?
The only "mistake" made was when an employee inadvertently let out that it was a "federal matter", when he was not supposed to tell that much. Burst.net official statement states that the take down was a conscious decision made after reviewing the blogs referenced by the FBI, not an "honest mistake": https://www.burst.net/news/blogetry.shtml
Plus I wonder how happy the FBI is with burst.net's decision and all the publicity: It might have wanted to infiltrate the terrorist blog(s) or at least track which IPs were posting or commenting on it. The FBI was only asking burst.net who the blogetery owner was.
I did read it already, what do you think? It was referenced in 4.5. BTW, the link is: https://www.burst.net/policy/contract.pdf
But as I said in http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=965094, this clause does not make sense. The same Exhibit B section states:
"(D) Offensive or Objectionable Material. BurstNET reserves the right to request you remove any material which BurstNET deems offensive, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable.
Failure to do so may result in blocking your site or termination of the Agreement by BurstNET Services."
In that case, blogetery was not even given the chance to delete the offending blog(s). Even if burst.net gives itself all powers (basically making the whole contract a total joke), it was 1) not legal (as in "required by a legal court order or Patriot Act request") for burst.net to take down the site, 2) a partial breach of 4.5 and Exhibit B (D) of the contract, and 3) a totally stupid act to take down 73,000 blogs when only a couple were being investigated by the FBI.
Burst.net should get all the blame and bad publicity it deserves for such an outrageous act. The whole blogosphere is posting comments asking everybody to stop working with burst.net, I totally agree.
I second that. At least for some Asus mobos, they have near perfect audiophile sound.
Currently listening to a Lúnasa lossless wma rip ("Iúil : Frailock") on a Sennheiser HD 650 plugged directly into the mobo, it's pure pleasure. Same with good USB Logitech speakers and woofer, the sound is huge and clean at the highest volume level.
Or a SATA 6Gbps controller...
Just read the linked thread by affiliateplex. Are slashdot commenters usually so hateful?
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=964013
Burst.net clearly takes no account of its own contract if it does not consider his customers responsible for handling the situation:
Paragraph 4.5 states: "Client shall be solely responsible for all content available on or through its site"
Many commenters said that burst.net had no choice in the matter, but I beg to differ. Burst.net should have redirected the FBI to the rightful contact, the owner of blogetery.
Many also accuse affiliateplex of having broken the law. If so, Facebook and Google Blogger have broken the law thousands of times for child porn. Were they shut down? Of course not, only the individual illegal/infringing blogs were shut down, not the whole service.
Others also say affiliateplex should monitor every post in every blog he hosts. What a stupid nonsense. Again, Facebook and Blogger don't monitor their blogs. Instead, they have a "Report this blog" button for readers to signal potentially illegal blogs. Only then do they take action to verify if the claim was justified.
I really feel sorry for affiliateplex, he certainly did not deserve both the shutdown of his hosting site and the hate comments, and he has all my sympathy and support.
*sale
I am all for prohibiting the same of chemical fertilizers. Add charcoal and saltpetre, and you have your bomb. Long live organic farming! ^-^
I still don't understand why the FBI did not ask directly blogetery to shut down the couple of blogs involved, and why burst.net chose to shut down blogetery instead of forwarding the FBI request to them. It does not make sense and seems to be a very bad decision from burst.net. As well ask Verizon or AT&T to cut the Internet cables powering burst.net. Besides, it's only blogetery who knows the IPs of these blogs, not burst.net. Or am I missing something? The FBI did not seem to have contacted blogetery owner at all, as he stated in the previous article that the shutdown might have been caused by copyright infringement. He obviously had not clue why his blog hosting site was shut down. Geez, not only has slashdot home page the worst display design for articles, baring maybe The Register, but its design for comments are even worse. Somebody knows a way to expand all the abbreviated comments?