←back to thread

SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

(databasearchitects.blogspot.com)
589 points greghn | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pclmulqdq ◴[] No.39443994[source]
This was a huge technical problem I worked on at Google, and is sort of fundamental to a cloud. I believe this is actually a big deal that drives peoples' technology directions.

SSDs in the cloud are attached over a network, and fundamentally have to be. The problem is that this network is so large and slow that it can't give you anywhere near the performance of a local SSD. This wasn't a problem for hard drives, which was the backing technology when a lot of these network attached storage systems were invented, because they are fundamentally slow compared to networks, but it is a problem for SSD.

replies(30): >>39444009 #>>39444024 #>>39444028 #>>39444046 #>>39444062 #>>39444085 #>>39444096 #>>39444099 #>>39444120 #>>39444138 #>>39444328 #>>39444374 #>>39444396 #>>39444429 #>>39444655 #>>39444952 #>>39445035 #>>39445917 #>>39446161 #>>39446248 #>>39447169 #>>39447467 #>>39449080 #>>39449287 #>>39449377 #>>39449994 #>>39450169 #>>39450172 #>>39451330 #>>39466088 #
_Rabs_ ◴[] No.39444028[source]
So much of this. The amount of times I've seen someone complain about slow DB performance when they're trying to connect to it from a different VPC, and bottlenecking themselves to 100Mbits is stupidly high.

Literally depending on where things are in a data center... If you're looking for closely coupled and on a 10G line on the same switch, going to the same server rack. I bet you performance will be so much more consistent.

replies(3): >>39444090 #>>39444438 #>>39505345 #
silverquiet ◴[] No.39444438[source]
> Literally depending on where things are in a data center

I thought cloud was supposed to abstract this away? That's a bit of a sarcastic question from a long-time cloud skeptic, but... wasn't it?

replies(3): >>39444488 #>>39445334 #>>39446736 #
doubled112 ◴[] No.39444488[source]
Reality always beats the abstraction. After all, it's just somebody else's computer in somebody else's data center.
replies(1): >>39444553 #
bombcar ◴[] No.39444553[source]
Which can cause considerable "amusement" depending on the provider - one I won't name directly but is much more centered on actual renting racks than their (now) cloud offering - if you had a virtual machine older than a year or so, deleting and restoring it would get you on a newer "host" and you'd be faster for the same cost.

Otherwise it'd stay on the same physical piece of hardware it was allocated to when new.

replies(1): >>39444620 #
doubled112 ◴[] No.39444620[source]
Amusing is a good description.

"Hardware degradation detected, please turn it off and back on again"

I could do a migration with zero downtime in VMware for a decade but they can't seamlessly move my VM to a machine that works in 2024? Great, thanks. Amusing.

replies(2): >>39445263 #>>39445751 #
1. wmf ◴[] No.39445751[source]
Cloud providers have live migration now but I guess they don't want to guarantee anything.
replies(1): >>39447261 #
2. bombcar ◴[] No.39447261[source]
It's better (and better still with other providers) but I naively thought that "add more RAM" or "add more disk" was something they would be able to do with a reboot at most.

Nope, some require a full backup and restore.

replies(1): >>39447719 #
3. wmf ◴[] No.39447719[source]
Resizing VMs doesn't really fit the "cattle" thinking of public cloud, although IMO that was kind of a premature optimization. This would be a perfect use case for live migration.