it![5]<br>
<br>
I think that, being in the business of providing virtual<br>
infrastructure at commodity prices, we can't really expect too many<br>
people to want or be able to take the time to profile their storage<br>
use and make a call on what needs to be backed by SATA or SSD.<br>
<br>
I think we first need to try to make it as good as possible for<br>
everyone, always. There may be a time in the future where it's<br>
commonplace for customers to evaluate storage in terms of IO<br>
operations per second instead of gigabytes, but I don't think we are<br=
>
there yet.<br>
<br>
As for the "low-end customers subsidise higher-end customers"<br>
argument, that's just how shared infrastructure works and is already<br=
>
the case in many existing metrics, so what's one more? While we<br>
continue to not have a good way to ration out IO capacity it is<br>
difficult to add it as a line item.<br>
<br>
So, at the moment I'm more drawn to the "both" option but wit=
h the<br>
main focus being on caching with a view to making it better for<br>
everyone, and hopefully overall reducing our costs. If we can sell<br>
some dedicated SSD storage to those who have determined that they<br>
need it then that would be a bonus.<br>
<br>
Thoughts? Don't say, "buy a big SAN!" :-)<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
[1] You know, when we double the RAM or whatever but keep the price<br>
=A0 =A0to you the same.<br>
<br>
[2] Hot swap trays plus Linux md =3D online array grow. In theory.<br>
<br>
[3] "Nice virtual machine you have here. Would be a real shame if<br>
=A0 =A0 the storage latency were to go through the roof, yanno? We got<br>
=A0 =A0 some uh=85 extras=85 that can help you right out of that mess.<br>
=A0 =A0 Pauly will drop by tomorrow with an invoice."<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =97 Tony Soprano's Waste Management and Virtual Server Hos=
ting,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Inc.<br>
<br>
[4] echo "oryyvav, pbfzb, cerfvqrag naq hedhryy unir rvtug qvfxf.<br>
=A0 =A0oneone unf sbhe FNF qvfxf." | rot13<br>
<br>
[5] Barring *very* occasional problems like a disk broken in such a<br>
=A0 =A0way that it doesn't die but delays every IO request, or a<br>
=A0 =A0battery on a RAID controller going defective, which disables the<br=
>
=A0 =A0write cache.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
<a href=3D"
http://bitfolk.com/" target=3D"_blank">
http://bitfolk.com/</a> -=
- No-nonsense VPS hosting<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
announce mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"
mailto:announce@lists.bitfolk.com">announce@???</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce" target=3D"_=
blank">
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/announce</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
users mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"
mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com">users@???</a><br>
<a href=3D"
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users" target=3D"_bla=
nk">
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
--bcaec5430f4e0a8e3704ae8838e7--
From moggers87@??? Wed Oct 05 09:03:25 2011
Received: from mail-wy0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176])
by bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <moggers87@???>) id 1RBNNp-0001y9-Ge
for users@???; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:03:25 +0000
Received: by wyg10 with SMTP id 10so2040644wyg.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:content-type
:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version;
bh=8ERIe6IxJS5aGjjQaw11YZjJGTUNRC1jual6XEGVh+I=;
b=NYPGgT3aR7LFV9oVJi6qHBkXRt4VsLaSka1L46cWz5eQFvmq6mwBlwL4JHzwf33mYF
a/X6MlUhYCEAELzjWXxofHtUFVpR+HLIQv0ODvGO5NjgDa0HpAIgGJUovOt9Apu0olGy
cSam5NeBsW+3NAS0LT4/15Uzu1GbqOkwhO8es=
Received: by 10.216.230.218 with SMTP id j68mr6556645weq.66.1317805394427;
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (93-97-223-144.zone5.bethere.co.uk.
[93.97.223.144])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h14sm1724752wbo.7.2011.10.05.02.03.12
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1317805390.2181.13.camel@???>
From: Matt Molyneaux <moggers87@???>
To: users@???
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:03:10 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20111005043402.GK4221@???>
References: <20111005043402.GK4221@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.0 (3.2.0-1.fc16)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on bitfolk.com at Wed,
05 Oct 2011 09:03:21 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 74.125.82.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: moggers87@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 74.125.0.0/16
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust * [74.125.82.176 listed
