- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Wen said the team will continue to improve the speed and reduce the energy needed to write and read data from the disk.
literally the last paragraph, no read/write speeds… ive seen a lot of these nanoscale data-density ‘breakthroughs’ but the read/write costs are so high/slow it never comes to market. the optical disk format gives me a little hope
I imagine the idea here would be for long term storage, so you’d still use faster media day to day, and then dump things there as an archive.
sure, but if your write speed is 1gb/day in your new nanoscale thing, its not going to work at scale.
thats why i was looking for any write speed on this new tech, and i havent found it yet.
autistic complaining
honestly I don’t even know how to interpret ~11.5 μg b/s (micro gram bits per second).
Seriously I get not liking capital letters , but like ESPECIALLY in this case (as ~11.5 b/s and ~11.5 B/s are about as reasonable) , capitalize your units ! also differentiate between GiB (gigi bits) and GB (giga bits).
to be fair , because g and b are not separated by a space , “×” or “•” , g should be interpreted as a prefix , according to SI rules , but its not something most people know about and g is not a valid SI prefix .
Yeah that’s true, there’s a minimum write speed you have to achieve if it’s going to be at all useful. And to be fair, a lot of this tech never hits the market because it’s hard to scale from lab to production, or just not cost effective enough to produce at scale. Still good to see people researching this stuff though.
Removed by mod
its the write speeds that always fail… although i recall one of these where the multiple reading lasers were too expensive and they abandoned the method
Now where is that article about storing data by etching it on glass …
IEEE Spectrum says this:
Currently, he says, the new discs have a writing speed of about 100 milliseconds and an energy consumption of microjoules to millijoules.
Idk if that means the full 200TB in 100ms, or a bit per 100ms, but there is a number out there I suppose.
i had thought that tape was used by big enterprises
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open“Public information on tape drive sales is not readily available. Unit shipment peaked at about 800,000 units in 2008, but have declined since then to about 400,000 units in 2010,[98] and to less than 250,000 by the end of 2018[99] As HDD prices have dropped, disk has become cheaper relative to tape drives and cartridges. As of 2019, at any capacity, the cost of a new LTO tape drive plus one cartridge is much greater than that of a new HDD of the same or greater storage capacity. However, most new tape cartridges still have a lower price per gigabyte than HDDs, so that at very large subsystem capacities, the total price of tape-based subsystems can be lower than HDD based subsystems, particularly when the higher operating costs of HDDs are included in any calculation.[100]”
Oh yeah, tape drives are still used for long term storage because tape tends to be a lot more durable and cheaper. You can safely store info on tape for decades.
