我找了一下到底是什麼地區,目前只有看到「Wasabi Technologies Inc Status」這邊有編號 (US-East-1、US-East-2、US-Central-1、US-West-1、EU-Central-1、AP-Northeast-1),但也沒找到地區... US 的都在美國沒問題,AP-Northeast-1 應該是日本,但 EU-Central-1 是哪裡就找不到了。
另外是 pay-as-you-go 的方案最小是 1TB,如果是歐美區的話是 US$5.99:
For customers using the Wasabi pay-as-you-go pricing model, Wasabi has a minimum monthly charge associated with 1 TB of active storage. If you store less than 1 TB of active storage in your account, you will still be charged for 1 TB of storage based on the pricing associated with the storage region you are using.
然後也有 90 天的最短計價時間:
Wasabi has a minimum storage duration policy that means if stored objects are deleted before they have been stored with Wasabi for a certain number of days (90 days when using the Wasabi pay-go pricing model), a Timed Deleted Storage charge equal to the storage charge for the remaining days will apply.
80. We split each file into 80 different encrypted pieces, and each piece is stored on a different Node.
When you retrieve an object, only 29 of its 80 pieces are needed to reconstitute that object. With no central point of failure, your data is always quickly available, all over the world.
官方有提到,低於 250,000 drive days 以下的數據僅供參考,因為資料量太少,在統計上無法提供結論:
For drives which have less than 250,000 drive days, any conclusions about drive failure rates are not justified. There is not enough data over the year-long period to reach any conclusions. We present the models with less than 250,000 drive days for completeness only.
The answer: It was a group effort. To start, the older drives: 4TB, 6TB, 8TB, and 10TB drives as a group were significantly better in 2020, decreasing from a 1.35% AFR in 2019 to a 0.96% AFR in 2020. At the other end of the size spectrum, we added over 30,000 larger drives: 14TB, 16TB, and 18TB, which as a group recorded an AFR of 0.89% for 2020. Finally, the 12TB drives as a group had a 2020 AFR of 0.98%. In other words, whether a drive was old or new, or big or small, they performed well in our environment in 2020.
✨ NEW ✨ We’re thrilled to announce our collaboration with edge cloud platform leader @fastly! Free egress from Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage to Fastly’s network means that you can now...
Our new collaboration with Fastly, a global edge cloud platform and CDN, offers an integrated solution that will let you store and serve rich media files seamlessly, free from the lock-in fees and functionality of closed “goliath” cloud storage platforms, and all with free egress from Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage to Fastly.
The format for endpoints for the Backblaze S3 Compatible API:
https://s3.<region>.backblazeb2.com
The Backblaze S3 Compatible API endpoints only accept connections over HTTPS. Non-secure connections will be rejected. The AWS SDKs and most integrations only require an Endpoint URL like the above (without the bucket name included).
另外也支援使用 bucket name 的形式操作:
If making the HTTP calls directly, the Backblaze S3 Compatible API supports specifying the bucket name in the hostname of the URL or in the path section of the URL. Both URLs below are valid examples of an endpoint calling a bucket:
In Q4 2019 we started qualifying Seagate 16 TB drives, model: ST16000NM001G. As of the end of Q4 we had 40 (forty) drives in operation, with a total of 1,440 drive days—well below our 5,000 drive day threshold for Q4, so they didn’t make the 2019 chart. There have been 0 (zero) failures through Q4, making the AFR 0%, a good start for any drive. Assuming they continue to pass our drive qualification process, they will be used in the 12 TB migration project and to add capacity as needed in 2020.
The total AFR for 2019 rose significantly in 2019. About 75% of the different drive models experienced a rise in AFR from 2018 to 2019. There are two primary drivers behind this rise. First, the 8 TB drives as a group seem to be having a mid-life crisis as they get older, with each model exhibiting their highest failure rates recorded. While none of the rates is cause for worry, they contribute roughly one fourth (1/4) of the drive days to the total, so any rise in their failure rate will affect the total. The second factor is the Seagate 12 TB drives, this issue is being aggressively addressed by the 12 TB migration project reported on previously.
Power draw is a very important metric for us and the high speed enterprise drives are expensive in terms of power cost. We now total around 1.5 megawatts in power consumption in our centers, and I can tell you that every watt matters for reducing costs.
SMR would give us a 10-15% capacity-to-dollar boost, but it also requires host-level management of sequential data writing. Additionally, the new archive type of drives require a flash-based caching layer. Both of these requirements would mean significant increases in engineering resources to support and thereby even more investment. So all-in-all, SMR isn’t cost-effective in our system.
成本面上,他們觀察到的現象是每季會降 5%~10%:
Ideally, I can achieve a 5-10% cost reduction per terabyte per quarter, which is a number based on historical price trends and our performance for the past 10 years.
另外提到了用 SAS controller 可以接多個 SATA 硬碟的事情 (雖然還是成本考量),但這塊也蠻有趣的:
Longer term, one thing we’re looking toward is phasing out SATA controller/port multiplier combo. This might be more technical than some of our readers want to go, but: SAS controllers are a more commonly used method in dense storage servers. Using SATA drives with SAS controllers can provide as much as a 2x improvement in system throughput vs SATA, which is important to me, even though serial ATA (SATA) port multipliers are slightly less expensive. When we started our Storage Pod construction, using SATA controller/port multiplier combo was a great way to keep costs down. But since then, the cost for using SAS controllers and backplanes has come down significantly.