this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
172 points (98.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36168 readers
1701 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know memory is fairly cheap but e.g. there are millions of new videos on youtube everyday, each probably few hundred MBs to few GBs. It all has to take enormous amount of space. Not to mention backups.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] okuhiko 110 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Google just has a lot of storage space. They have dozens of data centers, each of which is an entire building dedicated to nothing but storing servers, and they’re constantly adding more servers to previous data centers and building new data centers to fit even more servers into once the ones they have are full.

IIRC, estimates tend to put Google’s current storage capacity somewhere around 10-15 exabytes. Each exabyte is a million terabytes. Each terabyte is a thousand gigabytes. That’s 10-15 billion gigabytes. And they can add storage faster than storage is used up, because they turn massive profits that they can use to pay employees to do nothing but add servers to their data centers.

Google is just a massive force in terms of storage. They probably have more storage than any other organization on the planet. And so, they can share a lot of it for free, because they’re still always turning a profit.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

There are also techniques where data centers do offline storage by writing out to a high volume storage medium (I heard blueray as an example, especially because it's cheap) and storing it in racks. All automated of course. This let's them store huge quantities of infrequently accessed data (most of it) in a more efficient way. Not everything has to be online and ready to go, as long as it's capable of being made available on demand.

[–] legion 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You can feel it on YouTube when you try to access an old video that no one has watched in a long time.

[–] seeCseas 33 points 2 years ago (3 children)

every time it lags, it's because youtube has to send someone down to the basement to retrieve the correct blu-ray disc from a storage room

[–] Widowmaker_Best_Girl 8 points 2 years ago

God bless those interns. Earning those college credits.

[–] WhatsHerBucket 6 points 2 years ago

And that guy is out today..

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's far more likely that Google, AWS, and Microsoft are using tape for high-volume, long-term storage.

According to diskprices.com, these are the approximate cost of a few different storage media (assuming one is attempting to optimize for cost):

  • Tape $0.004 - $0.006 / GB
  • HDD $0.009 - $0.012 / GB
  • BluRay $0.02 - $0.04 / GB
  • SSD $0.035 - $0.04 / GB
  • microSD $0.065 - $0.075 / GB
[–] bustrpoindextr 7 points 2 years ago

Tape archives are neat too, little robot rearranging little tape drives in his cute little corridor

[–] BURN 7 points 2 years ago

Tape drives are still in use in a lot of places too. Enormous density in storage for stuff that’s in “cold storage”

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

I don't think the storage density of a blu ray is anywhere near good enough for that use

[–] WhoRoger 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Doesn't BR only have like 100 gigs capacity? That would take a shitton of space.

They use tapes for backups, but indeed there ought to be something inbetween.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

https://engineering.fb.com/2015/05/04/core-data/under-the-hood-facebook-s-cold-storage-system/

This is an article from 2015 where Facebook/Meta was exploring Blu-ray for their DCs. You're definitely right though. Tape is key as the longest term storage.

[–] WhoRoger 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

2015 was quite a while ago tho.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NewNewAccount 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They’re really using optical storage as a backup that can then be near-instantaneously accessed? That’s awesome.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago

The 10-15 EB estimate from XKCD was 10 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Let's be honest, it isn't "free". The user is giving their own data to Google in order to use there services; and data is a commodity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Kinda starting to seem like "data" is becoming less and less valuable, or am I wrong?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

well there's more and more of it so the value per byte is decreasing as everything tracks you and there's only so much info you can get

[–] jrs100000 8 points 2 years ago

And thats just Google. Amazon and Microsoft also run also have massive massive data capacity that runs large chunks of the internet. And then you get into the small and medium sized hosting companies, that can be pretty significant on their own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

15 exabytes sounds low. Rough math, 1 20 TB hard drive per physical machine with 50,000 physical machines is one exabyte raw storage. I bet 50,000 physical machines is a small datacenter for Google.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] assembly 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It’s the same story with AWS as well. They use vast amounts of storage and leverage different tiers of storage to get the service they want. It’s funny but they have insane amounts of SD cards ( cheapest storage available at the size) and use that for some storage and just replicate things everywhere for durability. Imagine how small 256GB SD cards are and they you have hardware to plug-in 200 of them practically stacked on top of each other. The storage doesn’t need to be the best, it just needs to be managed appropriately and actively to ensure that data is always replicated as devices fail. That’s just the cooler tier stuff. It gets complex as the data warms.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

SD cards? I'm very skeptical. Do you have a source?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yeah this seems false. SD cards are unreliable, hard to keep track of, and don’t actually store that much data for the price. I do think they use tapes though to store long term, low traffic data.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

Ha, I had no idea data centers use SD cards! It makes sense in hindsight, but it's still funny to think about

[–] DontTreadOnBigfoot 21 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Absolutely huge data centers.

A full third of my towns real estate is currently covered with a sprawling Google data center. Just enormous.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not only that but for each video on YouTube there are different versions for each resolution. So if you upload a 1080p video, it gets converted to 1080p AVC/VP9, 720p AVC/VP9, 480p... also for the audio.

If you run youtube-dl -F <youtube url> you will see different formats.

[–] Falmarri 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Does youtube actually store copies of each one? Or does it store 1 master copy and downsaple as required in real time. Probably stores it since storage is cheaper than cpu time

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

If it converts every video in realtime it will require a lot of CPU per server, it's cheaper to store multiple copies. Also the average video isn't more than some 300MB, less if it's lower quality.

Anyone with Plex or Jellyfin knows that it's better to have the same movie in both qualities (1080,720) the transconding to avoid CPU usage.

It's possible to have fast transconding with GPUs, but with high so many users on youtube that will require a lots of power and high energy prices, store is cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I believe they store and that’s why it processes lowest res first and works up

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jmr 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

YouTube isn't even profitable yet. Google pours billions into storage and compute, so does Amazon and Microsoft and all the others. They have so much space we probably can't even comprehend it

[–] EricHill78 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

TIL that Google owned YouTube. How did I not know this? I honestly thought that they were their own entity still after all these years. God I feel dumb.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

Enormous servers all around the world and over the years storage is getting smaller and smaller proportionally to how much you can store on it

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Twitter probably doesn't take to that much space (comparatively) because it's mostly text with some images.

YouTube is another matter. There's an enormous amount of content uploaded to YouTube, as much as 30,000 hours of video uploaded per hour. That's around 1PB per hour assuming most videos are uploaded in 1080p.

I wasn't able to find an official source for what YouTube's total data storage is, but this estimate puts it at 10 EB or 10,000,000,000 GB of video.

On Amazon AWS that would cost $3 Billion per month to store. The actual cost to Google is probably much lower because of economy of scale and because it is run by and optimized for them, but it is still a colossal figure. They offset the cost with ads, data collection, and premium subscription, but I would imagine running YouTube is still a net loss for Google.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I'm generally the first to criticize Google, but when it comes to pushing ads on YouTube I'm having a hard time really condemning them for it. I struggle to wrap my head around how this service can exist at all.

Also, second to direct transactions, I'd much rather have Google make money through ads than anything else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Agreed, I pay for YouTube premium and in the world of corporate crap and fees and stuff I’m ok with that value trade off relatively. Hell, I would have paid for Reddit, too, if they weren’t assholes.

Edit: I mistyped Google premium instead of YouTube premium… same place though of course

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Holy shit I didn't know it was that insane.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It gets even crazier when you realize they are sort of obligated to keep every video forever. So it will just keep growing indefinitely since they have no way to trim it down. We may eventually reach a point where the majority of the content that they host is older than most living people and the uploader has since passed on.

[–] WhoRoger 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They won't, eventually they'll pull a Imgur and start deleting stuff that hasn't been accessed in a while.

I mean didn't they just announce they'll start deleting inactive accounts?

But even if not, storage always becomes cheaper with time, so it's just a matter of copying old data to a newer medium. Eventually that will become an issue, but for now, capacity and storage density keeps growing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean didn’t they just announce they’ll start deleting inactive accounts?

They stated they would delete the accounts but that the videos would remain. But obviously the policy could change. My point was more that a ton of people would be watching content that was uploaded by and for people who are no longer alive. Which makes me feel uncomfortable in a way I can't quite describe. Like a modern version of seeing a ghost.

[–] davidgro 4 points 2 years ago

If it's really 1 PB per hour, and mostly 1080p or higher (which seems likely, unlike the assumptions in that Quora answer) then they would fill about 9 EB every year! Obviously the rate would be lower in the past, but that 30k link was a number as of a year ago anyway.

[–] seeCseas 4 points 2 years ago

I would imagine running YouTube is still a net loss for Google.

I doubt it, youtube generates about 30 billion in revenue per year!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

For twitter it's not that complicated because tweets are quite short and text compresses very well. The pictures and videos people upload are of course another story, I'm not sure what Twitter uses as a backend for anything though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

From what I gather, Twitter uses Google as its Simple Storage Service (S3), which is one of the main reasons why them dine-and-dashing Alphabet Inc. with the bill for server usage was so severe for their backend

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was recently doing a tour of CERN in Geneva, and they actually still store data on tape because of its cost and reliability over hard drives!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Three additional things that you have to keep in mind are that:

1 - Enterprise storage is much, much denser (as in, capacity per physical space occupied) than you would expect.
2 - These systems have capacity recovery features (primarily compression and deduplication) that save a lot more storage than you would expect.
3 - The elements in the infrastructure are periodically refreshed by migrating them to newer infrastructure (think of how you could migrate two old 500GB disks to a single modern 1TB disk to save the physical space of a disk).

As an example about point 1, this is what IBM advertises in their public whitepaper for their Storage Scale systems (https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/R0Q1DV1X):

"IBM Storage Scale System is based on proven IBM Storage 2U24 hardware that can be expanded with additional storage enclosures up to 15.4PB of total capacity in a single node and 633YB in a single cluster. You can start with 48TB using half-populated flash nodes or create a fully-populated NVMe flash solution with 24, 2.5” drives in capacities of 3.84TB, 7.68TB, 15.36TB or 30TB. Using the largest capacity 30TB NVMe drives, up to 720TB total flash capacity, in a 2U form factor, along with associated low weight and low power consumption. Adding storage enclosures is easy as up to 8 enclosures (each 4u with 102 drives) can accommodate up to 816 drives of 10TB, 14TB or 18TB or 14.6PB of total raw HDD capacity."

In short, you end up packing a stupid amount of storage in relatively moderate spaces. Combined with the other two points, it helps keep things somewhat under control. Kinda.

load more comments
view more: next ›