In both cases, the motivation is the same: voters are saying "we don't like seeing people with low incomes / people driving less safe cars, so we're just going to legislate the problem away". But that simply transforms poor working people with cars who could gradually improve their situation into even poorer jobless people without cars who will never be able to get out of poverty.
It is staggering that there are people who look at the race to the bottom of the last few decades, producing stagnant wages, near non-existent job security, accelerating wealth and income gaps, crashing class mobility and an ocean of debt and conclude: "You know what would really help ? More of that !"
It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage. Those people will vote (or act in other ways) to overturn the system that is making their lives impossible.
With real wages having gone nowhere for decades, we're arguably well into that scenario now. How much longer do you think we've got ?
When the wealthy have a police state with killbots on their side, what chance do you think the people have ?
Minimum wage exists to set a floor on living standards. Society says even the poorest people prepared to put in a day's work should be able to afford shelter, food, etc.
At a macro scale, arguing against a minimum wage us arguing the economy can not be productive enough to support all of its participants.
If you can't afford to pay someone minimum wage, you are implicitly saying they cannot be productive enough to be worth keeping at a level society deems satisfactorily minimal for survival.
When you are prepared to stand in front of poor people and tell them they can't contribute enough to justify a basic level of existence, you are prepared to argue minimum wage laws shouldn't exist.
Finally, moral issues aside, there's the simple maths problem of a race to the bottom: once you've successfully impoverished all but a handful of rich people, who's going to buy the stuff they're selling ?
It took a decade or so longer for the RWNJ neoliberals to really get a foothold, but now they have Australia is spiralling the same drain as the rest of the western world.
The country was doomed when Howard was elected in '96. Up until that point, we had a chance.
Australia has a small population and can't afford to subsidize the 30,000 plus refugees who pay smugglers to bring them to Australia. Settled refugees flock to the big cities, causing a massive increase in the cost of living. Worse, certain foreigners refuse to assimilate, creating an isolated community with a decreasing standard of living and increasing crime. Australia has just recovered from the damage caused by refugees settled here in the 1980s. A lot of people don't want to approach that hot potato again.
This is complete bullshit. Refugees are a rounding error in Australia's immigrant intake over any meaningful timeframe.
They do, however, provide a convenient scapegoat for the people's quite reasonable concern over the extremely high immigration rate and tragic underinvestment in infrastructure.
Australia is the country whose leaders have, for the last thirty or so years, looked to the US and UK and decided "the problem these guys have is that they're just not going hard enough".
So now you are saying something about a conventional server and pretending it's the same as a 45 drive backblaze pod [...]
No. I am saying something about how drive activity affects temperature. (Though it is worth pointing out the drives in my cages are physically as tightly packed as the ones in a Backblaze pod).
As it turns out it changes it by around 4 degrees, as predicted. Not the 10-20 degrees it would need to for your scenario of drives commonly overheating to 40-50 given baselines in the 16-34 degree range.
So, if those drives waaaayyy up the back in row three of the Backblaze case are sitting there idling along at 28-34 degrees, like the data strongly suggests they do, when they get smashed by activity they're going to heat up to maybe 34-40 degrees, tops (and probably less).
You can try this yourself pretty easily. Put a drive in one of those USB cradles and point a desk fan at it. Let it sit and spin for 20-30 minutes to get up to a stable operating temperature. Measure that with SMART. Then smash it with a zpool scrub or a dd, or whatever you want for half an hour and measure the temperature again. Observe the difference.
You can not possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be.
[...]
Instead of jumping on threads to play some wank of a mass debate game where you attempt to convince people of things contrary to reality why don't you do something useful, or at least less annoying?
You're like a study in psychological projection. Or an incredibly committed troll - in which case, well done.
Everything I have written here has been supported by evidence, which I have referenced.
Nothing you have written has.
Not to mention the two times (at least) you substantially misrepresented something I wrote trying to pretend it was somehow disingenuous.
"Reality" is that there is no evidence Backblaze have any temperature problems in their servers. Why this bothers you so much you feel the need to abuse people who point it out, I cannot even begin to fathom.
I suspect Backblaze is quite hard on drives and the rates are worse than you'd see outside of that environment. It is also worth noting that those drives are not all installed in the same type of "pod". Backblaze has changed pod designs a few times and now uses an "anti-vibration" system they didn't used to.
Your typical home desktop/server drive is likely to see a far harsher life than your average Backblaze drive.
I've written about the data and so have you. You pointed out that the average temperature looked very high to you.
I did not.
I said I’d be surprised if they got over 30. They are getting over 30, but not by much. The vast bulk of drives are clearly under 30. So I am surprised, but not by much.
“Very high” to me would be, as I have alluded to several times, a substantial percentage of drives into the high 30s to low 40s. Which would be represented in the stats by that great big fat chunk of the curve shifting 10-15 degrees rightwards.
It appears you are just being silly for the sake of an argument since it's obviously nothing like that at all.
LOL. You’ve clearly got a giant chip on your shoulder about Backblaze and you’re having a go at me about “being silly” ?
I do believe it's time for you to read a book on the topic instead of making stupid shit up or is that a deliberate lie to catch me in some silly argument trap or some kind of joke? Do you really have so little experience with computer hardware that you have not touched a drive that has just been removed after heavy usage, such as cloning a drive?
FFS.
As reported by SMART, the 16 drives in my home server idle (spinning) at 35-40 degrees. They sit in four Supermicro hot swap cases like these, though I have swapped the rear fans for quieter, slower-spinning Noctua NF-P12s as the machine sits in my office. The case is an Antec 1200 and the cabling inside is messy. It’s 30-31 degrees in the room.
After nearly an hour of zpool scrubbing, the warmest drive is at 44 degrees and the coolest at 39. Temps have been stable for fifteen minutes. Some small fraction of that will be the ~1 degree rise in ambient over that hour.
So, like I said, intensive drive activity pushes the temperature up by a few degrees (and in reasonably pessimistic conditions at that). The fans in Backblaze cases are shifting 2.5-3x as much air, the ambient temperature is probably 10-15 degrees cooler and their drives will be seeing constant, though maybe not constantly intensive, activity, meaning less temperature variation from “idle” to “flat out”. I could probably knock a degree or two off my numbers above just by changing the fan speeds in the hot swap cages from 900 to 1300rpm.
There is no evidence Backblaze have any heat problems with their cases.
You can repeat yourself as much as you want, but it doesn’t make you right.
The data says Backblaze don’t have any heat problems. Backblaze explicitly say they don’t have any heat problems and have done as long as I’ve been reading about them (they obviously track the necessary data to know and have no reason to lie that I can see). Experience says that even slow moving 30-35 degree air over a group of drives that would otherwise be running at 45-50 degrees will bring them down to the ~40 degree mark.
vs
Random internet guy says Backblaze must have heat problems because somebody he knew built something similar and it did.
Also, their first design did not have drives in direct contact (clearly a few mm gap between each one - no worse than a standard server case with caddies) and had six case fans (three front, three rear). Any heat problems they might have had in the first design would have come from the vibration-damping rubber sheath around each drive insulating it, not lack of airflow. But, again, according to them they've never had any heat problems.
It is an average so some of their drives are staying at that temperature for very long periods of time. What they get up to as a maximum we can only guess at due to the design and expected usage. If they supplied that information it would be very interesting and far more useful than an average including idle time and including disks that did not fail.
No, we can’t “only guess” because we have data. They’ve stated the drives run 24/7. Drive activity - even heavy drive activity - does not significantly change operating temperature over and above idle spinning temps (a few degrees maybe). If they were getting to high maximums, that would show in the data through higher averages (i.e.: there’d be a significant percentage up around the high 30s or low 40s, rather than just the 7200rpm drives). It’s quite reasonable to use averages because it’s quite reasonable to assume even worst case, the load is equally distributed between all drives due to their scale (best are more likely case is they explicitly seek to evenly distribute workload).
Nothing supports your assertion except your one friend who made a system something like Backblaze's and some drives in it died.
You gave a blanket opinion of it not happening so a single data point is enough to tell you that your opinion does not always reflect reality. Your failed oneupmanship with the resume stuff is also an anecdote BTW and is a bit of an odd thing to do in a place like this.
Your "someone tried to copy a Backblaze pod and got it wrong" is hardly a powerful counter-example.
There's no evidence to suggest their pod design has heat problems. None. That - and a non-trivial amount of experience with a wide variety of server hardware, including ones with near identical designs to Backblaze - is what my opinion was based on.
This is nothing to do with "oneupmanship". It's data vs an anecdote.
You don't seem to have been following the thread. My point has always been that it is for a specific use-case that does not make much sense at all outside Backblaze - thus results from them shouldn't be taken as more than an indication when the drives are used outside of the tiny pods with 45 drives packed in tightly and very little airflow.
MY point was actually, in a roundabout fashion, similar to yours, but with the opposite reasoning. Their conclusions need to be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on drives in datacentres that generally will not see the sorts of high temperatures, temperature fluctuations and power cycling that home desktops and servers do. As I said originally - and before actually checking - "I would be surprised if their drives get over 30C". Well, I was a bit surprised because some of their drives are getting up into the mid-30s (though clearly not many). But that's a long way from the 40-50 a typical desktop or home server PC will be cycling into day-in, day-out.
You're off on a dead end arguing Backblaze have heat problems in their design based on a single half-arsed anecdote, rather than looking at all the evidence available that says the do not. Yes, their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's because the typical home user disk sees much _harsher_ conditions than the typical Backblaze drive, not vice-versa.
"About a year ago, we took a group of Storage Pods and removed the 3 fans at the end, leaving just three middle fans to cool the unit. We placed these pods into production and monitored the temperature of the hard drives utilizing the SMART stats we take each day. Nothing changed, as the drives stayed cool and didn’t fail at higher rates."
The average drive temperatures are overwhelmingly in the 18-26 degree range. That means if there are an appreciable fraction of drives (15-20% you seem to be implying) are typically reaching the 40-50 degree mark, then to keep the overall average so low there must also be a decent percentage of drives at mid-teens, if not lower, temperatures. How do you think operating drives are going to sustain temperatures that low ?
There is no evidence that drives in Backblaze pods are overheating. So either we can take the reasonable and logical conclusion - that they're not - or we can take the conclusion that they're lying about drive temperatures for some reason.
Remember we are describing shoving drives in anywhere they will fit instead of a server case designed by someone that went somewhere near a technical college or university for anything other than coding.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure a company with a massive business interest in designing high-capacity storage servers hasn't invested a cent in hiring or consulting people with expertise in the field. </SARCASM>
Like I said, their design is largely the same as Sun's X45xx series. So they're far from the first to line up drives one behind the other.
Also with respect, it's the peak temperatures and not the averages that really matter if heat is killing those drives.
What evidence is there that peak temperatures and more significant than sustained temperatures ? What evidence is there heat is killing drives at all ?
It appears you don't understand the situation since they don't have typical servers but have drives packed in very tightly in multiple rows.
I'm quite aware of "the situation" as I've been watching Backblaze's designs for years and I've spent 15+ years dealing with Tier 1 server hardware. They're quite clearly inspired by Sun's X45xx Thumper series, with vertically stacked drives. Yes, the drives at the back will get hotter than those at the front, but it is difficult to see them getting anywhere close to 50. You do not need to shift a huge amount of air over a drive to make a non-trivial difference to how hot it gets. Even a slow-spinning, practically silent fan like some manufacturers put in their 4-in-3 cages will knock 5-10C off the typical operating temperature of drives (unless the ambient is high).
Ambient temperature matters because blowing <20 degree air through a case (datacentre scenario) will obviously have a better cooling effect than blowing 25+ degree air through a case (average home scenario).
Here is some temperature information from Backblaze. It shows what I expect, with the vast majority of drives under 30 degrees. Without bothering to check drive specs, I'm going to guess all the drives at the hotter end of the scale are 7200rpm models.
See this? This is in the category of "wages are real".
Yes. Wages are "real" (note the quotes - raise both hands into the air and dip your first two fingers to simulate the intent) to workers in the sense that is what they need to survive. Because without wages they can't buy stuff.
If it were a few millennia ago and people still worked on barter, your 'wages are real, the things like food that wages buy are real' argument might have some more meaning.
I am planning to say something at the level of a 7th grader to take the discussion forward, but I haven't yet felt confident that you would understand.
Funny. Because here I am thinking this is like a game of "I spy" with my five year old niece.
The '70s is when the war on workers and wages began and globalisation started to kick off. Then in the '80s we got the complete takeover of western economies by neoliberalism - more globalisation, more war on workers, deregulation of the finance industry, massive tax cuts, etc.
Basically, the constraints on the selfish and greedy were steadily rolled back and they proceeded to - predictably - consume everything.
Which is why nearly all the benefits have gone to those people.
(People like to use 1973 as the year everything changed, usually because they want to focus on the end of Bretton Woods, but the real divergence doesn't start until the 1978-1982 timeframe, depending on which version of the graph you're looking at.)
Yes, which is why I also clarified the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter - just relative to what one needs to buy/save.
Which has been stagnant for decades.
You seem to have a huge problem with simple words. The concepts of wages being real, vs the "real wages" as in trend over time, are completely different. I am trying and failing to see any intellectual spark in the discussion since you stumble on such simple combinations of words.
"Real wages" as term for inflation adjusted wages is the common usage.
"Real wages" in whatever definition you are using is not.
Slashdot Mirror
In both cases, the motivation is the same: voters are saying "we don't like seeing people with low incomes / people driving less safe cars, so we're just going to legislate the problem away". But that simply transforms poor working people with cars who could gradually improve their situation into even poorer jobless people without cars who will never be able to get out of poverty.
It is staggering that there are people who look at the race to the bottom of the last few decades, producing stagnant wages, near non-existent job security, accelerating wealth and income gaps, crashing class mobility and an ocean of debt and conclude: "You know what would really help ? More of that !"
It's impossible to have a society where a large fraction of people can't find work that pays a living wage. Those people will vote (or act in other ways) to overturn the system that is making their lives impossible.
With real wages having gone nowhere for decades, we're arguably well into that scenario now. How much longer do you think we've got ?
When the wealthy have a police state with killbots on their side, what chance do you think the people have ?
Minimum wage exists to set a floor on living standards. Society says even the poorest people prepared to put in a day's work should be able to afford shelter, food, etc.
At a macro scale, arguing against a minimum wage us arguing the economy can not be productive enough to support all of its participants.
If you can't afford to pay someone minimum wage, you are implicitly saying they cannot be productive enough to be worth keeping at a level society deems satisfactorily minimal for survival.
When you are prepared to stand in front of poor people and tell them they can't contribute enough to justify a basic level of existence, you are prepared to argue minimum wage laws shouldn't exist.
Finally, moral issues aside, there's the simple maths problem of a race to the bottom: once you've successfully impoverished all but a handful of rich people, who's going to buy the stuff they're selling ?
It took a decade or so longer for the RWNJ neoliberals to really get a foothold, but now they have Australia is spiralling the same drain as the rest of the western world.
The country was doomed when Howard was elected in '96. Up until that point, we had a chance.
The major cities in Australia often get ranked as best / most-livable in the world.
Because those liveability lists are largely based on surveying highly paid expatriates.
For normal people, they're basically useless.
Australia has a small population and can't afford to subsidize the 30,000 plus refugees who pay smugglers to bring them to Australia. Settled refugees flock to the big cities, causing a massive increase in the cost of living. Worse, certain foreigners refuse to assimilate, creating an isolated community with a decreasing standard of living and increasing crime. Australia has just recovered from the damage caused by refugees settled here in the 1980s. A lot of people don't want to approach that hot potato again.
This is complete bullshit. Refugees are a rounding error in Australia's immigrant intake over any meaningful timeframe.
They do, however, provide a convenient scapegoat for the people's quite reasonable concern over the extremely high immigration rate and tragic underinvestment in infrastructure.
Kinda.
Australia is the country whose leaders have, for the last thirty or so years, looked to the US and UK and decided "the problem these guys have is that they're just not going hard enough".
So now you are saying something about a conventional server and pretending it's the same as a 45 drive backblaze pod [...]
No. I am saying something about how drive activity affects temperature. (Though it is worth pointing out the drives in my cages are physically as tightly packed as the ones in a Backblaze pod).
Specifically, I said "drive activity - even heavy drive activity - does not significantly change operating temperature over and above idle spinning temps (a few degrees maybe)."
As it turns out it changes it by around 4 degrees, as predicted. Not the 10-20 degrees it would need to for your scenario of drives commonly overheating to 40-50 given baselines in the 16-34 degree range.
So, if those drives waaaayyy up the back in row three of the Backblaze case are sitting there idling along at 28-34 degrees, like the data strongly suggests they do, when they get smashed by activity they're going to heat up to maybe 34-40 degrees, tops (and probably less).
You can try this yourself pretty easily. Put a drive in one of those USB cradles and point a desk fan at it. Let it sit and spin for 20-30 minutes to get up to a stable operating temperature. Measure that with SMART. Then smash it with a zpool scrub or a dd, or whatever you want for half an hour and measure the temperature again. Observe the difference.
You can not possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be.
[...]
Instead of jumping on threads to play some wank of a mass debate game where you attempt to convince people of things contrary to reality why don't you do something useful, or at least less annoying?
You're like a study in psychological projection. Or an incredibly committed troll - in which case, well done.
Everything I have written here has been supported by evidence, which I have referenced.
Nothing you have written has.
Not to mention the two times (at least) you substantially misrepresented something I wrote trying to pretend it was somehow disingenuous.
"Reality" is that there is no evidence Backblaze have any temperature problems in their servers. Why this bothers you so much you feel the need to abuse people who point it out, I cannot even begin to fathom.
I suspect Backblaze is quite hard on drives and the rates are worse than you'd see outside of that environment. It is also worth noting that those drives are not all installed in the same type of "pod". Backblaze has changed pod designs a few times and now uses an "anti-vibration" system they didn't used to.
Your typical home desktop/server drive is likely to see a far harsher life than your average Backblaze drive.
I've written about the data and so have you. You pointed out that the average temperature looked very high to you.
I did not.
I said I’d be surprised if they got over 30. They are getting over 30, but not by much. The vast bulk of drives are clearly under 30. So I am surprised, but not by much.
“Very high” to me would be, as I have alluded to several times, a substantial percentage of drives into the high 30s to low 40s. Which would be represented in the stats by that great big fat chunk of the curve shifting 10-15 degrees rightwards.
It appears you are just being silly for the sake of an argument since it's obviously nothing like that at all.
LOL. You’ve clearly got a giant chip on your shoulder about Backblaze and you’re having a go at me about “being silly” ?
I do believe it's time for you to read a book on the topic instead of making stupid shit up or is that a deliberate lie to catch me in some silly argument trap or some kind of joke? Do you really have so little experience with computer hardware that you have not touched a drive that has just been removed after heavy usage, such as cloning a drive?
FFS.
As reported by SMART, the 16 drives in my home server idle (spinning) at 35-40 degrees. They sit in four Supermicro hot swap cases like these, though I have swapped the rear fans for quieter, slower-spinning Noctua NF-P12s as the machine sits in my office. The case is an Antec 1200 and the cabling inside is messy. It’s 30-31 degrees in the room.
After nearly an hour of zpool scrubbing, the warmest drive is at 44 degrees and the coolest at 39. Temps have been stable for fifteen minutes. Some small fraction of that will be the ~1 degree rise in ambient over that hour.
So, like I said, intensive drive activity pushes the temperature up by a few degrees (and in reasonably pessimistic conditions at that). The fans in Backblaze cases are shifting 2.5-3x as much air, the ambient temperature is probably 10-15 degrees cooler and their drives will be seeing constant, though maybe not constantly intensive, activity, meaning less temperature variation from “idle” to “flat out”. I could probably knock a degree or two off my numbers above just by changing the fan speeds in the hot swap cages from 900 to 1300rpm.
There is no evidence Backblaze have any heat problems with their cases.
Do I have to keep on repeating myself []
You can repeat yourself as much as you want, but it doesn’t make you right.
The data says Backblaze don’t have any heat problems.
Backblaze explicitly say they don’t have any heat problems and have done as long as I’ve been reading about them (they obviously track the necessary data to know and have no reason to lie that I can see).
Experience says that even slow moving 30-35 degree air over a group of drives that would otherwise be running at 45-50 degrees will bring them down to the ~40 degree mark.
vs
Random internet guy says Backblaze must have heat problems because somebody he knew built something similar and it did.
Also, their first design did not have drives in direct contact (clearly a few mm gap between each one - no worse than a standard server case with caddies) and had six case fans (three front, three rear). Any heat problems they might have had in the first design would have come from the vibration-damping rubber sheath around each drive insulating it, not lack of airflow. But, again, according to them they've never had any heat problems.
It is an average so some of their drives are staying at that temperature for very long periods of time. What they get up to as a maximum we can only guess at due to the design and expected usage. If they supplied that information it would be very interesting and far more useful than an average including idle time and including disks that did not fail.
No, we can’t “only guess” because we have data. They’ve stated the drives run 24/7. Drive activity - even heavy drive activity - does not significantly change operating temperature over and above idle spinning temps (a few degrees maybe). If they were getting to high maximums, that would show in the data through higher averages (i.e.: there’d be a significant percentage up around the high 30s or low 40s, rather than just the 7200rpm drives). It’s quite reasonable to use averages because it’s quite reasonable to assume even worst case, the load is equally distributed between all drives due to their scale (best are more likely case is they explicitly seek to evenly distribute workload).
Nothing supports your assertion except your one friend who made a system something like Backblaze's and some drives in it died.
If you pick something that doesn't fail under their extreme circumstances, it's a lot less likely to fail at home.
I said this elsewhere but it might get lost in the noise.
Your typical home PC or server drive will likely see far, far harsher conditions than any Backblaze drive.
So take their conclusions with a grain of salt, especially the ones around heat.
You gave a blanket opinion of it not happening so a single data point is enough to tell you that your opinion does not always reflect reality. Your failed oneupmanship with the resume stuff is also an anecdote BTW and is a bit of an odd thing to do in a place like this.
Your "someone tried to copy a Backblaze pod and got it wrong" is hardly a powerful counter-example.
There's no evidence to suggest their pod design has heat problems. None. That - and a non-trivial amount of experience with a wide variety of server hardware, including ones with near identical designs to Backblaze - is what my opinion was based on.
This is nothing to do with "oneupmanship". It's data vs an anecdote.
You don't seem to have been following the thread. My point has always been that it is for a specific use-case that does not make much sense at all outside Backblaze - thus results from them shouldn't be taken as more than an indication when the drives are used outside of the tiny pods with 45 drives packed in tightly and very little airflow.
And my point is that your reasoning is wrong, because it is based on an incorrect assumption that they have heat problems, when all the evidence suggests they do not. Your fundamental argument is that the design of the Backblaze pod has inherent hotspot issues For a variety of reasons BackBlaze pack more drives into each case than others consider sane and they have a lot of heat with very minimal airflow.). This would most certain manifest in the average temperatures and is completely independent of any drive failure stats.
MY point was actually, in a roundabout fashion, similar to yours, but with the opposite reasoning. Their conclusions need to be taken with a grain of salt because it is based on drives in datacentres that generally will not see the sorts of high temperatures, temperature fluctuations and power cycling that home desktops and servers do. As I said originally - and before actually checking - "I would be surprised if their drives get over 30C". Well, I was a bit surprised because some of their drives are getting up into the mid-30s (though clearly not many). But that's a long way from the 40-50 a typical desktop or home server PC will be cycling into day-in, day-out.
You're off on a dead end arguing Backblaze have heat problems in their design based on a single half-arsed anecdote, rather than looking at all the evidence available that says the do not. Yes, their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's because the typical home user disk sees much _harsher_ conditions than the typical Backblaze drive, not vice-versa.
I've seen it happen.
Anecdotes are not data.
They don't seem to have seen any problems
The average drive temperatures are overwhelmingly in the 18-26 degree range. That means if there are an appreciable fraction of drives (15-20% you seem to be implying) are typically reaching the 40-50 degree mark, then to keep the overall average so low there must also be a decent percentage of drives at mid-teens, if not lower, temperatures. How do you think operating drives are going to sustain temperatures that low ?
There is no evidence that drives in Backblaze pods are overheating. So either we can take the reasonable and logical conclusion - that they're not - or we can take the conclusion that they're lying about drive temperatures for some reason.
Remember we are describing shoving drives in anywhere they will fit instead of a server case designed by someone that went somewhere near a technical college or university for anything other than coding.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure a company with a massive business interest in designing high-capacity storage servers hasn't invested a cent in hiring or consulting people with expertise in the field. </SARCASM>
Like I said, their design is largely the same as Sun's X45xx series. So they're far from the first to line up drives one behind the other.
Also with respect, it's the peak temperatures and not the averages that really matter if heat is killing those drives.
What evidence is there that peak temperatures and more significant than sustained temperatures ? What evidence is there heat is killing drives at all ?
It appears you don't understand the situation since they don't have typical servers but have drives packed in very tightly in multiple rows.
I'm quite aware of "the situation" as I've been watching Backblaze's designs for years and I've spent 15+ years dealing with Tier 1 server hardware. They're quite clearly inspired by Sun's X45xx Thumper series, with vertically stacked drives. Yes, the drives at the back will get hotter than those at the front, but it is difficult to see them getting anywhere close to 50. You do not need to shift a huge amount of air over a drive to make a non-trivial difference to how hot it gets. Even a slow-spinning, practically silent fan like some manufacturers put in their 4-in-3 cages will knock 5-10C off the typical operating temperature of drives (unless the ambient is high).
Ambient temperature matters because blowing <20 degree air through a case (datacentre scenario) will obviously have a better cooling effect than blowing 25+ degree air through a case (average home scenario).
Here is some temperature information from Backblaze. It shows what I expect, with the vast majority of drives under 30 degrees. Without bothering to check drive specs, I'm going to guess all the drives at the hotter end of the scale are 7200rpm models.
Yes, the Google study found the same.
However, I suspect this is mostly because in datacentres drives simply don't get hot enough for heat to become a factor - rarely over 30 degrees.
In home PCs and servers, 40-50 degrees C is quite common. Hard disks in machines like iMacs regularly get over 50 degrees C.
For a variety of reasons BackBlaze pack more drives into each case than others consider sane and they have a lot of heat with very minimal airflow.
Backblaze have their drives in datacentres with ambient temperatures in the low 20s C, probably less. I'd be surprised if their drives got over 30C.
Most home PCs/servers would be lucky to keep their drives _under_ 30C unless they're somewhere where the ambient is quite low.
Yes ?
As expected, the goldbug monomania overrules rational thought.
I didn't blame it on greed. Greed is constant. I blamed it on the removal of constraints on greed.
See this? This is in the category of "wages are real".
Yes. Wages are "real" (note the quotes - raise both hands into the air and dip your first two fingers to simulate the intent) to workers in the sense that is what they need to survive. Because without wages they can't buy stuff.
If it were a few millennia ago and people still worked on barter, your 'wages are real, the things like food that wages buy are real' argument might have some more meaning.
I am planning to say something at the level of a 7th grader to take the discussion forward, but I haven't yet felt confident that you would understand.
Funny. Because here I am thinking this is like a game of "I spy" with my five year old niece.
The '70s is when the war on workers and wages began and globalisation started to kick off. Then in the '80s we got the complete takeover of western economies by neoliberalism - more globalisation, more war on workers, deregulation of the finance industry, massive tax cuts, etc.
Basically, the constraints on the selfish and greedy were steadily rolled back and they proceeded to - predictably - consume everything.
Which is why nearly all the benefits have gone to those people.
(People like to use 1973 as the year everything changed, usually because they want to focus on the end of Bretton Woods, but the real divergence doesn't start until the 1978-1982 timeframe, depending on which version of the graph you're looking at.)
I didn't say wages are real, you said that I said "wages are real":
"Why do you say wages are real [...]"
You quoted my statement about wages being real, and then replied with a statement about real wages.
Yes, because I assumed you didn't understand the context in which "real wages" was being used.
This discussion would probably be more productive if you spent less time playing pointless games with semantics.
Can you highlight the point in the discussion at which I used the term "real wages" to mean anything else other than inflation-adjusted wages ?
Yes, which is why I also clarified the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter - just relative to what one needs to buy/save.
Which has been stagnant for decades.
You seem to have a huge problem with simple words. The concepts of wages being real, vs the "real wages" as in trend over time, are completely different. I am trying and failing to see any intellectual spark in the discussion since you stumble on such simple combinations of words.
"Real wages" as term for inflation adjusted wages is the common usage.
"Real wages" in whatever definition you are using is not.
Let me guess, it's the guv'mint and if we just got rid of it, everything would be hunky-dory ?