• originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    112 months ago

    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

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      72 months ago

      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.

      • originalucifer
        link
        fedilink
        82 months ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          32 months ago

          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.

        • MinekPo1 [She/Her]
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago
          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 .

      • originalucifer
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        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

    • @SteveTech@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

  • @leanleft
    link
    English
    22 months ago

    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]”

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      52 months ago

      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.