home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.arch.storage:641 comp.databases:6641
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!sixgun.East.Sun.COM!sungy!stasys!alanya!lupe
- From: lupe@ukw.uucp (Lupe Christoph)
- Newsgroups: comp.arch.storage,comp.databases
- Subject: Re: Info on large, slow storage wanted (jukeboxes, etc.)
- Message-ID: <1992Sep5.154049.4649@ukw.uucp>
- Date: 5 Sep 92 15:40:49 GMT
- References: <1992Aug29.210553.8744@rhein-main.de> <1992Aug31.043738.19685@psg.com>
- Sender: uucp@stasys.sta.sub.org
- Organization: cic
- Lines: 26
-
- randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
-
- >vhs@rhein-main.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:
-
- >> I need to design a retrieval system for ~15TB of data, of which ~5TB are
- >> retrieved with a high frequency (25 requests/second) and an access time
- >> of avg. 30 seconds (max. 120 seconds). Retrieval lacks any locality, so the
- >> 5TB are real random-access. The rest of the data is still accessed at a
- >> rate of 5 requests/second.
-
- >Optical RW store, a la HP.
-
- He's talking *Tera*byte, not Gigabyte. The largest hp jukebox accomodates
- roughly 100 GB. This project would require 150 jukeboxes for capacity
- alone. But having 5 TB on MO disks in online access would mean no less
- than 16000 drives! Assuming an MTBF of 20000 hours (data is for Sony
- SMO-E501) means that you have to replace a drive almost every hour!
-
- BTW, I believe the Subject: is somewhat off the mark. For a capacity
- in the TB range, 25 requests/second requires extremely fast devices
- (i.e. compared to jukeboxes taking a few second to exchange media).
- --
- | ...!unido!ukw!lupe (German EUNet, "bang") | Disclaimer: |
- | lupe@ukw.UUCP (German EUNet, domain) | As I am self-employed, |
- | suninfo!alanya!lupe (Sun Germany) | this *is* the opinion |
- | Res non sunt complicanda praeter necessitatem. | of my employer. |
-