Re: If only there were other units
100m/s is a football field a second, or roughly the speed of an Indy qualifying session.
Happy to help.
21 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2008
My first hard drive was a 52MB SCSI effort for my Amiga.
It was £350 as I recall, circa 1991. I have used a PC/XT with a 5MB Hard drive though..
4TB for £150 is a bargain (although oddly I can only see this price for USB drives, the bare drive itself is more??!)
I suppose you would just buy the USB drive and pull it out of the case for a sata-III install.
...but to be totally honest, they have been the best supporting ISP I've ever dealt with.
I'm currently on O2's LLU ADSL (on an old package with no limits, a 1-month rolling contract, etc).
If Zen did the same thing for even double the price, I'd move back: that's how good they are.
You get what you pay for with them, which is: a solid service.
Even when things go wrong they are good to deal with, in my experience. They don't dumb down their service either: if you want to do something a bit interesting like running the DD-WRT firmware on your own router, they don't mind, and will provide you with things like ADSL encapsulation settings and stuff without complaint or confusion. Try doing that with any* of the volume ISPs and see where that gets you!
* (Except BE*, who are also excellent)
Your points are fine but actually I think that disk will die because it satisfies neither requirement properly leaving flash and tape to do all the jobs.
What's the point of spinning disk if your entire infrastructure is built around the speed of flash?
You can't do anything productive with disk if it's 100 times too slow... so you just end up with more flash instead.
I appreciate that many people won't agree!
<flame suit on>
Ideally O2/Be would just cease providing service over non LLU lines.
The unbundled service they provide is amazing - the BT-based one, on the other hand, is a load of tripe. It gives people who don't understand the difference a bad opinion of o2 broadband overall.
Leave BT to provide BT-based broadband, and let the market sort out the rest.
That was my point, really.
Diligent (Protectier) does >900MB/sec dedupe today, off two boxes of commodity hardware clustered together. It scales hugely (1PB, off the shelf) because it's less limited by memory scaling problems than "traditional" (if there is such a thing) hash-based dedupe algorithms are.
Yes, ZFS will do dedupe for free (if you consider storage I/O, processor and RAM to be free). Diligent isn't free, but it's more effective than the mooted ZFS dedupe will be anyhow.
Forgive the slightly combatative way of asking the question, I've just finished writing a whitepaper on this stuff, and comparing hash-based dedupe to diligent's fingerprinting approach is sort of like comparing the ark to the Ark royal.