←back to thread

SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

(databasearchitects.blogspot.com)
589 points greghn | 1 comments | 20 Feb 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
pclmulqdq ◴[20 Feb 24 17:22 UTC] 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 #
1. vidarh ◴[21 Feb 24 08:19 UTC] No.39451330[source]▶
It does not fundamentally have to be. That's an architectural choice driven by cloud providers backing off from the "instances can die on you" choice that AWS started with and then realized customers struggled with, towards attempting to keep things running in the face of many types of hardware failures.

Which is ironic given that when building on-prem/colo'ed setups you'll replicate things to be prepared for unknown lengths of downtime while equipment is repaired or replaced, so this was largely cloud marketing coming bak to bite cloud providers' collective asses. Not wanting instances to die "randomly" for no good reason does not always mean wanting performance sacrifices for the sake of more resilient instances.

But AWS at least still offers plenty of instances with instance storage.

If I'm setting up my own database cluster, while I don't want it running on cheap consumer-grade hardware without dual power supplies and RAID, I also don't want to sacrifice SSD speed for something network-attached to survive a catastrophic failure when I'm going to have both backups, archived shipped logs and at least one replica anyway.

I'd happily pick network-attached storage for many things if it gets me increased resilience, but selling me a network-attached SSD, unless it replicates local SSD performance characteristics, is not competitive for applications where performance matters and I'm set up to easily handle system-wide failures anyway.