Am Montag, 11. März 2013, 06:02:26 schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > On 3/10/2013 1:54 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > So in summary, an Exabyte scale XFS is simply not practical today, and > > won't be for at least another couple of decades, or more, if ever. The > > same holds true for some of the other filesystems you're going to be > > writing about. Some of the cluster and/or distributed filesystems > > you're looking at could probably scale to Exabytes today. That is, if > > someone had the budget for half a million hard drives, host systems, > > switches, etc, the facilities to house it all, and the budget for power > > and cooling. That's 834 racks for drives alone, just under 1/3rd of a > > mile long if installed in a single row. > > Jet lag due to time travel caused a math error above. With today's 4TB > drives it would require 2.25 million units for a raw 9EB capacity. > That's 3,750 racks of 600 drives each. These would stretch 1.42 miles, > 7500 ft. And I just acknowledged the building plans for our new datacenter, based on your former calculations. The question is, who carries the costs of the now needed 4 other floors of that building.. Are you well-insured, Stan? Cheers, Pete _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
