The cuts are happening again

The Register has reported that some UK banks are forcing their contractors to take a 10% pay cut or take a hike. It is usual for contractors to take the hit first as they are an easy target compared to terminating permanent staff and to be fair, as a contractor/consultant myself, if the chop comes then so be it, it's part of the nature of the business.

However, the downside is that the most able contractors are likely and will surely leave first. Many of those who remain will have a lethargic attitude to work and overall, the company suffers.

In addition, Barclays are offshoring more jobs, presumably to further save costs. In my experience, moving jobs offshore doesn't work. It simply moves skills away from the business and causes the customers to lose control over their IT operations. This isn't necessarily a reflection on poor quality of work from the outsourcing suppliers; far from it, I'm sure most are equally as competent or skilled as their UK counterparts. The issue is more to do with operating remotely from the customer; not understanding the "local" issues; not understanding local culture and not being part of the team who see and chat with each other every day. As someone who currently works with multiple clients for 1-2 days a week, I experience this problem even though I know my customers well. Imagine if you've never met most of the people you are providing complex services for.

One final note; Barclays claim they worked out they were paying "over the market rate". That's a phrase I've never understood. It assumes all contractor's skills are equally good (or bad) and so they can be paid, or have their pay cut to the same degree. It also assumes that all contractors were taken on and overpaid by an equal amount. I wonder if they did the same market comparision for permanent staff and considered cutting their salaries by an equivalent amount? Somehow I think not...

5TB drives

I just read this on The Register. 5TB drives! Can you imagine it! The HDD manufacturers continue to push the envelope even further.

Now I have a concern about drives getting to this size and that's the ability to get data on/off the drive itself. With 73/146/300GB drives, the capacity to response time ratio is still within a tolerance that means adequate random access throughput can be achieved. But with larger drives the number of different concurrent accesses will increase and if response time doesn't decrease then very large HDDs will start to operate like sequential devices.

I think I need an illustration to make my point. Imagine a 73GB drive is receiving 200 random I/Os per second, each with an average 5ms response time. Scale the capacity up to a 5TB drive and that's about 69 times the capacity. The scaled up drive would have to cope with 13800 I/Os a second and provide an average response time of 0.07ms!

Firstly, it is unlikely 5TB drives will be expected to perform like today's 73GB drives but it serves to illustrate that we can't expect to simply consolidate and shrink the number of drives installed into an array. We need something more.

I think we need a more innovative approach to the design of the drive interface. This may simply be shed loads of cache, to improve the overall average response time, or perhaps multiple virtual interfaces per drive or independently mobile read/write heads which don't need to read/write a cylinder at the same time. It could even be drives that dynamically reallocate their data to make read/write quicker (for example, put frequently read/write blocks in the same physical area of the drive).

Who knows what the solution is, but rest assured something needs to happen to make 5TB drives useful devices.