Partitioning Cache Data

Partitioning Cache Data

Quorum in the network is 3. (This is down from the previous value of 4... find out why). I randomly choose 1+6 but 1+5 or 1+4 could provide sufficient redundancy.

Implementing a 1 + 6 partitioning strategy can save 12% on average for each network node. 1 + 6 indicates AU owner + 6 additional network nodes. Adding 2 additional nodes to the network can decrease per node storage by an average of 30%. Adding 4 additional nodes and partitioning cache data can save per node storage on average of 41%. This means we could store up to 18 TB of data on 10.6 TB nodes.

Implementing a 1+5 which is 6 discrete nodes in the network (double quorum), base storage decrease is 25% with no additional nodes. 1+5 with 4 additional nodes achieves a staggering 50% on average per node storage reduction.

All nodes (default configuration)

			
au_host	AUCount	ContentSize in TB	DiskCost in TB
ADAH	778	5.11	5.13
AUB	778	5.11	5.13
BPL	778	5.11	5.13
SHC	778	5.11	5.13
TROY	778	5.11	5.13
UAB	778	5.11	5.13
UAT	778	5.11	5.13
UNA	778	5.11	5.13
		40.88	41.04

Doesn’t include vacated publisher AUs (which is between 500 and 600 GB).

1 + 6 no additional nodes

au_host	AUCount	ContentSize	DiskCost	count	size	cost
ADAH	667	4.60	4.62		-14.27%	-9.99%	-9.97%
AUB	676	3.83	3.85		-13.11%	-25.00%	-24.94%
BPL	669	4.49	4.51		-14.01%	-12.19%	-12.15%
SHC	666	4.48	4.49		-14.40%	-12.41%	-12.41%
TROY	666	4.29	4.30		-14.40%	-16.13%	-16.09%
UAB	667	4.58	4.60		-14.27%	-10.29%	-10.26%
UAT	767	5.06	5.09		-1.41%	-0.89%	-0.86%
UNA	667	4.43	4.45		-14.27%	-13.27%	-13.23%
		35.76	35.91			-12.52%	-12.49%

1 + 6 with 2 additional nodes

au_host	AUCount	ContentSize	DiskCost	count	size	cost
ADAH	519	3.93	3.95		-33.29%	-23.00%	-22.98%
AUB	540	3.21	3.23		-30.59%	-37.15%	-37.09%
BPL	522	3.09	3.11		-32.90%	-39.49%	-39.44%
SHC	519	3.22	3.23		-33.29%	-36.97%	-36.96%
TROY	519	3.26	3.28		-33.29%	-36.15%	-36.09%
UAB	519	3.02	3.03		-33.29%	-40.93%	-40.89%
UAT	751	4.89	4.91		-3.47%	-4.40%	-4.38%
UNA	519	3.26	3.28		-33.29%	-36.15%	-36.09%
ADAH2	518	3.94	3.95				
BPL2	519	3.94	3.95				
		35.76	35.91			-12.52%	-12.49%

1+6 with 4 additional nodes

au_host	AUCount	ContentSize in TB	DiskCost in TB				
ADAH	503	2.60	2.61	-35.35%	-49.11%		
ADAH2	407	2.52	2.54	-47.69%	-50.61%		
AUB	425	3.16	3.17	-45.37%	-38.13%		
AUB2	501	3.25	3.26	-35.60%	-36.42%		
BPL	405	2.47	2.48	-47.94%	-51.57%		
BPL2	457	2.86	2.87	-41.26%	-43.98%		
SHC	408	2.83	2.84	-47.56%	-44.66%		
TROY	401	3.34	3.35	-48.46%	-34.68%		
UAB	413	2.50	2.51	-46.92%	-51.13%		
UAT	740	4.79	4.81	-4.88%	-6.23%		
UAT2	428	2.48	2.49	-44.99%	-51.52%		
UNA	357	2.97	2.98	-54.11%	-41.96%	-41.68%	-41.67%
		35.76	35.91

Looking at 1+5 which is 6 discrete nodes in the network (double quorum), base storage decrease is 25% with no additional nodes. 1+5 with 4 additional nodes achieves a staggering 50% on average per node storage reduction.

1+5 with no additional nodes

							
au_host	AUCount	ContentSize in TB	DiskCost in TB				
ADAH	581	3.8384	3.854856396	-25.32%	-24.87%		
AUB	539	3.9789	3.996972466	-30.72%	-22.12%		
BPL	537	3.7228	3.737751961	-30.98%	-27.13%		
SHC	590	3.3681	3.383465672	-24.16%	-34.07%		
TROY	555	3.7953	3.812593842	-28.66%	-25.71%		
UAB	572	3.6851	3.701880264	-26.48%	-27.87%		
UAT	757	4.9206	4.939711952	-2.70%	-3.68%		
UNA	536	3.3432	3.356886768	-31.11%	-34.56%		
		30.6524	30.78411932			-25.02%	-25.00%

1+5 with 4 additional nodes

au_host	AUCount	ContentSize in TB	DiskCost in TB				
ADAH	395	1.9515	1.961049938	-49.23%	-61.80%		
ADAH2	332	2.0561	2.066130066	-57.33%	-59.75%		
AUB	349	2.8968	2.908515167	-55.14%	-43.30%		
AUB2	328	2.5209	2.531873703	-57.84%	-50.65%		
BPL	463	2.7718	2.782540035	-40.49%	-45.74%		
BPL2	367	2.5277	2.538369083	-52.83%	-50.52%		
SHC	350	2.9395	2.95199995	-55.01%	-42.46%		
TROY	327	1.83	1.839459991	-57.97%	-64.18%		
UAB	331	2.1005	2.109290314	-57.46%	-58.88%		
UAT	736	4.852	4.871892166	-5.40%	-5.02%		
UAT2	377	1.833	1.840956402	-51.54%	-64.12%		
UNA	312	2.3728	2.382042503	-59.90%	-53.55%	-50.01%	-50.00%
		30.65	30.78