Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Using "8x 4 way SATA data splitters".

What i don't get is why they don't use 14TB HDDs, they are only 15% more expensive per TB. On the other hand they'd need 2.33x less PCs at $550 each, plus their power use.

So instead of every 7 PCs with 6TB HDDs they'd need 3 with 14TB HDDs.

PS: They could also use a mainboard with 10 SATA ports instead of 8. They are only $15 more than the chosen board. Adding one or more PCIe 8x SATA controller cards might also make sense, depending on the average load of a system.




> Using "8x 4 way SATA data splitters".

There's no such thing as a passive SATA data splitter.


it's probably a SAS/Sata controller, and the sas interface split to 4x sata.


They do link to the motherboard they are talking about, and it doesn't have SAS.


They mention 8 pcie slots with 48 pcie lanes... I'm presuming they are filling them with sas/sata controllers.


> 48 PCIe lanes

PCIe lane count depends on CPU support, for AM4 I believe it ranges from 6x PCIe 3.0 (cheapest AMD Athlon/Ryzen CPU-s with integrated GPU) to 24 (PCIe 4.0 for latest Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000 series).

The CPU they list in the article supports 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity + 4 lanes for chipset (storage and other IO). Nowhere near the 48 PCIe lanes you mention, although you could argue that 20+4 lanes of PCIe 4.0 bandwidth is equal to 48 lanes of PCIe 3.0 bandwidth, but this would require a compatible CPU, which would increase the cost by hundreds of dollars.


6TB might be the most reliable at the time the decision was made.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: