* Posts by philipclark

4 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015

Everyone's all like 'stick it in the cloud!' What of the mad lads pushing data closer to compute?


100,000µs or above???

I think you need better storage if you have >100ms latency... =)

Intel-Micron scrap the summer diet, enlarge 3D XPoint mem DIMM fab


Yes, but is the cheese on the top or the bottom??

Sick of storage vendors? Me too. Let's build the darn stuff ourselves


I think you answered your own question Martin...

<i> "I built a block-storage array using an old PC, a couple of HBAs and Linux about five years ago; it was an interesting little project..." </i> – for home use

I notice you didn't say that your whole company depends on this homegrown array.

You're absolutely right, with a little time and research, you can build anything. But what percentage of a company's development budget goes into building a storage array (the fun exciting part) vs. testing, documenting, fixing, supporting, upgrading and generally "doing the important stuff" ?

Storage BLOG-OFF: HP's Johnson squares up to EMC's Chad Sakac


Reply to: burjoes

If that were true and storage was 1 nanoseconds to 50 nanoseconds, then the CPU or network would be the biggest bottleneck.

But that is not the case: storage is 1 millisecond to 10s of milliseconds, 10^6 times slower than nanoseconds.

That is why today, storage latency has such disproportional leverage over the application response and end-user experience.

[Disclosure: IBM FlashSystem employee]


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022