gitgudnubs's comments

This is an amazing observation for someone unfamiliar with structural typing. It's probably also why python programmers tend to enjoy Go.

Cool, it seems that US tomato farms produce as much light as North Korea.

Then you failed to comprehend the subject. The point is that a wide array of problems and models are really the same thing.

Storage spaces is probably the best software raid available today. Unfortunately, it comes with windows.

It supports heterogenous drives, safe rebalancing (create a third copy, THEN delete the old copy), fault domains (3-way mirror, but no 2 copies can be on the same disk/enclosure/server/whatever), erasure coding, hierarchical storage based on disk type (e.g., use NVMe for the log, SSD for the cache), clustering (paxos, probably). Then you toss ReFS on top, and you're done.

The only compelling reasons to buy windows server are to run third party software or a storage spaces/ReFS file share.

This problem was created by regulation. It's not clear that markets can work when governments grant monopolies, and don't restrict the ensuing vertical integration. The only solution is to grant weaker monopolies.

His employees negotiated their pay decades before the law changed.

lumost: Good idea: incentivize consumption.

Discounting the homeless? Lots.

No you weren't. That period includes one of the worst recessions in recorded economic history. The other guy either intentionally picked and chose his years, or is simply bad at research.

An inflation adjusted long-term trend is over 7%.

Geometric average returns for stocks are over 7%, and that accounts for inflation. The scenario presented to me included no investments, and a flat career.

I think the high cost of living in San Fransisco was a reasonable assumption for someone in the top 1% of income. I think the complete absence of investment in my analysis more than makes up for a flat career. It's not even clear that modeling a flat career growth increases the number, since income tends to peak around 48.

I didn't set the parameters of the question. I didn't consider investing the money either, proving that I was literally just responding to the scenario as presented. I chose San Fransisco, because it's close to home for posters here.

Your calculations are based on an erroneous model. Corporate profits are taxed twice. The effective tax rate of dividends can be as high as 39.8%. I'm not sure what typical numbers are, because I couldn't find 2018 data, and 2017 data predates significant tax cuts.

A single person in San Fransisco with an income of $500,000 and the standard deduction has a takes home $288,646.

A single person in San Fransisco has a cost of living of $1125.83 without rent, according to numbeo (whatever that is). Median rent in San Fransisco is $3700 for a one bedroom.

That leaves a measly $230,736 of post-tax, post-living expenses money. Assuming this person does nothing more than hide a monotonically increasing pile of cash under a mattress, it takes just over 43 years to amass $10,000,000.

Presumably this financial cretan started working right after college, at the age of 22. This means they've acquired the full sum at the age of 65, which is not an uncommon retirement age. Cuts close, but checks out.

You're racist for thinking that the word "black" used to refer to something as bad is at all related to dark skinned people.

You haven't eliminated them. You've just moved them into a dedicated co-processor.

Co-processors are cheap when they're ubiquitous, like DMA. Co-processors are expensive when they're in custom hardware, like K-V stores. I'll get more performance/$ by using standard SSDs than you will by buying specialized hardware. And because the workload is IO dominated, we'll probably both get the same absolute performance from the same server (that differs only in storage devices).

You'll only recoup those CPU cycles back if you bin pack CPU heavy workloads next to IO heavy workloads, which is rarely desirable for storage services, because it adds a great deal of variance. But you just spent shit loads of money eliminating variance by going to SSD.

It's the same in both cases.

You write a dirty mapping in memory. You persist the value, and you persist the mapping. Then you flip the dirty bit.

Exactly. It's a beautiful concept: the server is roughly half the TCO per gigabyte. That can decrease significantly with better architectures, as shown by this.

But making it 2x1GbE is a huge complicating factor. And 2.5GbE is way out of the cost curve per bps.

If I were going to sell a network attached spinning disk at scale, then I would probably target 2.5GBASE-T. The problem there is that no routers support it.

>it was a straight jump from 1GbE and it was relatively easy.

It wasn't relatively easy, because you can't run 10GBASE-T over Cat5e, and because a 10GbE NIC was as expensive as the rest of the drive put together.

Today you can run 2.5GBASE-T over Cat5e, but the standard was too late, and there was very little demand between 1GbE and 10GbE, so there are virtually no controllers. What controllers you can find are usually 10GbE controllers that can also do 2.5GbE. Until 2Gbps home internet and LANs become popular, there's no reason to expect change.

>There were no intermediate steps to get to 10GbE

That's the problem. Disk transfer rates can approach 1.5Gbps, so a 1GbE is a serious bottleneck. But 10 GbE hardware was significantly more expensive. What am I going to do, build a JBOD with a dozen disks and 1x10GbE, or put a dozen disks onto the network with 10GbE interfaces?

So instead you need 2x1GbE on every disk, which complicates management and doubles cabling, switches, and cost.

>We’ve gone from a single serialised stream to multiple parallel streams in order to reach next order speeds.

Which is hilarious when you consider PATA.

Network attached HDDs were killed by ethernet. In their infinite wisdom, ethernet decided there was no need for speeds between 1GbE and 10GbE. They finally caved to reality with 40GbE, 25GbE, and 50GbE. They eventually ratified 2.5GbE, but it was too late for network drives.

The transfer rate of an HDD is well over 1Gbps.