I wonder if it's where old S3 hard drives go to die? Presumably AWS have the world's single largest collection of used storage devices - if you RAID them up you can probably get reliable performance out of them for Glacier?

▲

donavanm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not quite. Hardware with customer data or corp IP (eg any sort of storage or nvram) doesnt leave the "red zone"[1] without being destroyed. And reusing EOL hardware is a nightmare of failure rates and consistency issues. Its usually more cost effective to scrap the entire rack once its depreciated, or potentially at the 4-5 year mark at most. More revenue is generated by replacing the entire rack with new hardware that will make better use of the monthly recurring cost (MRC) of that rack position/power whips/etc.

[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/aws-data-center-inside

▲

bob1029 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I still don't know if it's possible to make it profitable with old drives in this kind of arrangement, especially if we intend to hit their crazy durability figures. The cost of keeping drives spinning is low, but is double-digit margin % in this context. You can't leave drives unpowered in a warehouse for years on end and say you have 11+ nines of durability.

	▲	hinkley 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Unpowered in a warehouse is a huge latency problem. For storage especially we now build enough redundancy into systems that we don't have to jump on every fault. That reduces the chance of human error when trying to address it, and pushing the hardware harder during recovery (resilvering, catching up in a distributed concensus system, etc). When the entire box gets taken out of the rack due to hitting max faults, then you can piece out the machine and recycle parts that are still good. You could in theory ship them all off to the backend of nowhere, but it seems that Glacier is all the places where AWS data centers are, so it's not that. But Glacier being durable storage, with a low expectation of data out versus data in, they could and probably are cutting the aggregate bandwidth to the bone. How good do your power backups have to be to power a pure Glacier server room? Can you use much cheaper in-rack switches? Can you use old in-rack switches from the m5i era? Also most of the use cases they mention involve linear reads, which has its own recipe book for optimization. Including caching just enough of each file on fast media to hide the slow lookup time for the rest of the stream. Little's Law would absolutely kill you in any other context but we are linear write, orders of magnitude fewer reads here. You have hardware sitting around waiting for a request. "Orders of magnitude" is the space where interesting solutions can live.

▲

lijok 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You don’t raid old drives as it creates cascading failures because recovering from a failed drive adds major wear to other drives

	▲	hinkley 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Only if you have low redundancy. RAIDZ is better about this isn’t it? And Backblaze goes a lot farther. They just decommission the rack when it hits the limit for failed disks, and the files on the cluster are stored on m of n racks, so adding a rack and “resilvering” doesn’t even require scanning the entire cluster, just m/n of it.
	▲	pcthrowaway 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is less of a concern with RAID 6, and especially in Glacier's use case where reading any piece of data happens seldom, I'd expect it to be fine.