HDDs are still the best option for many workloads, including email.
Colo is typically sold on power not space, from your example you're either getting ripped off if it's for low power servers or massively undercharged for a 4xa100 machine
Re:We use our own hardware at Fastmail
by justsomehnguy on Sunday December 22, 2024 @05:32PM
(#42489746)
> Which certainly seems late in the cycle for the benefits of what SSD offers.
90% of emails are never read, 9% are read once. What SSD could offer for this use case except at least 2x cost ?
Don't forget that fastmail is through an internet transport with enough latency to make hdd seek times noise
Re:We use our own hardware at Fastmail
by brongondwana on Sunday December 22, 2024 @05:39PM
(#42489791)
We adopted SSD for the current week's email and rust for the deeper storage many years ago. A few years ago we switched to everything on NVMe, so there's no longer two tiers of storage. That's when the pricing switched to make it worthwhile.
To the point we have young Devs today that dont know what VPS and Colo ( Colocation) meant.
Back to the article, I am surprised it was only a "A few years ago" Fastmail adopted SSD. Which certainly seems late in the cycle for the benefits of what SSD offers.
Price for Colo on the order of $3000/2U/year. That is $125 /U/month.