[mapserver-users] Mapserver Storage

[tigana.fluens at gmail.com]

A correction about the dedicated machine price:
that's for 48TB = 24HDDs x 2TB each which is the max they can put on one 
single machine but you dont get any sort of redundancy that way so youd 
probably do RAID 1+0 for the added I/O speed and safety but you only get 
24TB

so that's 24TB for $1800 in a server with 12GB memory and a xeon proc. 
on AWS you pay for an EC2 instance (a 12GB instance is expensive iirc) 
separately not to mention you pay for bandwidth all the time as well as 
every request

you're right it's not that simple. im sure we can use AWS for other 
things maybe for the web app server itself ec2 would be nice. the s3fs 
is really awesome thanks for that i didnt know there was a way to mount 
s3 buckets :)

On 1/29/2011 1:29 AM, Mark Korver wrote:
> now we have some real numbers.
>
> reputable provider
> 10TB/$1800
>
> Amazon S3
> 10TB/$1250
>
> Amazon EBS
> 10TB/$1000
>
> its not that simple a comparison.  but looking at those numbers and
> knowing that with AWS you can run everything else as a function of
> need (EC2,LB,SQS,mail services... etc etc) AWS starts looking cheap.
> It might be a bit more to park data ( not really ) but that is only a
> small part of the final equation.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:30 AM,<tigana.fluens at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> @Mark Yes, so big of a difference. HDDs dont even fail often : ) What can
>> you say about our current plan:
>>
>> Assuming we need 10TB of storage,
>> We get a dedicated server somewhere on a reputable provider like SoftLayer
>> the max HDDs they can put in a single box is 24 so assuming we get 2TB HDDs
>> that's 24TB in RAID 1+0. I just spoke to their sales team and with the
>> config Xeon 5xxx something, 12GB DDR3 of memory among other things such as
>> the raid card and whatnot, it would cost around $1800/month.
>>
>> Is this a viable solution? I would like to just invest in a local server but
>> unfortunately our internet sucks here in our country so we'll just keep
>> local backups and rely on the RAID in the said machine for the required
>> "redundancy" if you can call it that.