Post a Comment
Unrelated problems.
ZFS, being a filesystem, is unrelated to data transfer. I'm sure it could be useful to the project in otherways, though: ext3 filesystems, for example, have a size limit in the neighborhood of 8-16 TB. You could probably use some kind of logical volume manager to concatinate a bunch of filesystems together, but why do that if ZFS can manage such datasets withought breaking a metaphorical sweat?
Of course, the article says nothing about the actual technology Google is using for these "hard drive systems," and I can't recall off the top of my head what the state of ZFS on Linux is (is it working now through FUSE?).
As for the problem at hand--transfers of enormous datasets--it's really just a Google implementation of the old proverb "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes speeding down the highway."
"sneakernet for the win."
Both in terms of bandwidth and cost.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000783.html
I think the economic value of a network is based on its latency, not its bandwidth. It's just much more difficult to measure the former.






Though maybe someday we'll get something faster someday.