Re:Has Amazon EC2 become over subscribed? (2010)
by rdl on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:07AM
(#5587727)
Some of the OpenStack providers run their own storage networks using conventional SAN tech. Super expensive but more consistently performant.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Has Amazon EC2 become over subscribed? (2010)
by dmpk2k on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:38AM
(#5587804)
My experience with SANs is that they are anything but consistent. Local storage is a better idea: fewer moving pieces to go wrong, fewer moving pieces to understand and debug, fewer possible sources of contention, and the latency is low.
SANs in a cloud environment optimize for the wrong thing. Servers by and large have a high uptime -- since their falling over is comparatively rare, this is simply a problem I've never had difficulty with. What I have had in spades, before I learned better, were database problems due to wild fluctuations in latency to the SAN.
It doesn't help that when SANs kick the bucket, they tend to affect a lot of things.
Re:Has Amazon EC2 become over subscribed? (2010)
by rdl on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:29AM
(#5587930)
The context where SANs make sense, IMO, is when you've got a few servers which need to share stuff (VMs, or whatever). So, essentially everything can fit on one $10k 10GE switch. I've personally never screwed with anything >800TB, too.
Rather than "strictly local storage", I'd say "keep storage as local as possible", but there are absolutely times where keeping it in-chassis isn't optimal.