Slashdot Log In
A Yottabyte of Storage Per Year by 2013
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed May 07, 2008 09:23 AM
from the more-bits-please dept.
from the more-bits-please dept.
Lucas123 writes "David Roberson, general manager of Hewlett-Packard's StorageWorks division, predicts that by 2013 the storage industry will be shipping a yottabyte (a billion gigabytes) of storage capacity annually. Roberson made the comment in conjunction with HP introducing a new rack system that clusters together four blade servers and three storage arrays with 820TB of capacity. Many vendors are moving toward this kind of platform, including IBM, with its recent acquisition of Israeli startup XIV, according to Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Mark Peters."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In a Galaxay Close to Home (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In a Galaxay Close to Home (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
10^18 bytes ... isn't that "Exabyte"? (Score:5, Informative)
Unless we're talking about the British "billion"?
Parent
Re:10^18 bytes ... isn't that "Exabyte"? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Usage:
Q: "How much hard drive space is on that box?"
A: "Ah, no worries, it has a shitload of space on it."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I propose, for the sake of simplicity, and in accordance with the metric system, that a cubic shitload holds one fucktonne of water.
Re:In a Galaxay Close to Home (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:In a Galaxay Close to Home (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Yottabyte Fhtagn (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
there's something like 10^49 atoms on earth, and we'll only be able to access the crust of which only 5% is iron, and 80% of the earth is covered with water. so if we assume as a wild as guess that perhaps a part in a trillion of the earth can be made into disk drives then we have
1E37 atoms available for disk drives.
if each yottbyte drive weighs say 1/5 of a kilo and we assume it's built out mainly carbon and has say a mean
Re:Recycling (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Hey, we're only off by a factor of 1 million (Score:3, Informative)
A yottabyte [wikipedia.org] is not "a billion gigabytes." How about trying to confirm or understand the numbers your post, before you slap them on the front page?
The binary prefix giga = 10243
The binary prefix yotta = 10248
That means a yottabyte is 10245 gigabytes, or roughly one million billion gigabytes.
I'm waiting until 2015 (Score:5, Funny)
The new term (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it's idiotic you want then it's idiotic you get. "My computer storage has Yobibitybobityboodidybytes."
What's infinity divided by zero?
Ha Ha have any of you jokers noticed (Score:5, Informative)
or 10^12 * 10^12
I thought geeks hung out here......
Re:Ha Ha have any of you jokers noticed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
A billion Gigabytes? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta [wikipedia.org]
Oh and btw, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
umm.. wouldn't that be one zettabyte? If I am not off then one yottabyte would be a billion terabyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta [wikipedia.org]
Yeah. If it were merely a billion gigabytes, and we assume (not unreasonably) that the average drive is 1 terabyte 5 years from now, then the summary implies that only a million drives will sell in 2013, which would be terrible. Hmm, it's equally hard to imagine a billion such drives shipping, so maybe I'm missing something.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FAIL all around
A billion gigabytes would be an exabyte. A billion terrabytes would be zettabyte. A trillion terabytes or a quadrillion gigabytes would be a yottabyte.
Wikipedia to the rescue [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A billion Gigabytes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A billion Gigabytes? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Yottabytes (Score:3, Funny)
A billion gigabytes? (Score:2)
Re:A billion gigabytes? (Score:5, Interesting)
God, that hurts my head. I remember being at a university seminar in '91 or so, and one of the presenters was talking about petabytes.
At the time, it drew blank expressions and he had to explain that it was the one after terabytes (since that was an abstraction to most people).
I often find myself awed by just how much you can buy nowadays cheaply. I'm told that at Costco nowadays, you can buy a terabye of disk storage for about $250 CDN -- that's utterly mind-boggling to someone who remembers single-density, single-sided floppy drives.
Crazy stuff.
Cheers
Parent
Re:A billion gigabytes? (Score:4, Funny)
In 1986.
Good gravy, I remember the music and pants back then.
Nooooooooo!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Luxury!!
Why, I once got my tie caught in the gears of the difference engine [wikipedia.org], and had to stay there until we hit the last digit of the calculation -- I was there for days.
Cheers
Yottabyte? (Score:2, Funny)
And at the other end of the spectrum you have the nybble.
Which billions? Which gigabytes? (Score:2, Insightful)
- 10^9 * 10^9 bytes
- 2^30 * 2^30 bytes
- 10^9 * 2^30 bytes
- 10^12 * 2^30 bytes (non-american billions)
-
You never know, these days
I Believe It (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too surprised if we hit 10TB arrays next year, so this kind of progression seems like it's possible. Data's cheap nowadays!
Re:I Believe It (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
That's a lot of storage. (Score:2)
I refuse to dump floppies until then.
So confused (Score:5, Funny)
Shit (Score:4, Funny)
New prefixes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New prefixes (Score:4, Interesting)
Hopefully it will come down to unobyte, dosbyte, or something with a number convention, otherwise we might be hearing "crazybyte" or "uberbyte".
Parent
A list for your edification (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, I emailed them this link to the terms [techtarget.com] in question, and post it here, for your edification. I have a post-it note on my bookcase with these terms - I think that as time goes on, knowing EXACTLY what each one is will be of some use. Until the oil runs out and we are shivering in the cold, anyway...
Here's their names, abreviations and their power of ten, so you know how big/small it is.
yocto- y 10^-24
zepto- z 10^-21
atto- a 10^-18
femto- f 10^-15
pico- p 10^-12
nano- n 10^-9
micro- m 10^-6
milli- m 10^-3
centi- c 10^-2
deci- d 10^-1
(none) -- --
deka- D 10^1
hecto- H 10^2
kilo- K 10^3
mega- M 10^6
giga- G 10^9
tera- T 10^12
peta- P 10^15
exa- E 10^18
zetta- Z 10^21
yotta- Y 10^24
RS
How much is currently being shipped annually? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bigger, Not Faster (Score:3, Informative)
But personal drives don't need as high speeds for one person's use, especially when the high capacity is for large media content objects that are stored unfragmented. We don't need to spend the money on transfer speeds so much faster than our playback speeds that it's never used. Large builtin caches are useful for real random-access data in small chunks, like programs or numerical datasets, not media.
Blu-Ray's max transfer speed is 54Mbps [wikipedia.org], though that's for recording - 48Mbps is max playback. 3x for buffering during FWD/REV scanning playback would be 144Mbps, 2.25MBps. Big drives currently recommended for personal use, like Seagate's 1TB Barracuda ES.2 [storagereview.com], get at least 53MBps transfer, over 23x as fast as the fastest it will ever really be asked to deliver. If it weren't so unnecessarily fast, maybe it would cost less, and an array of them for the same hundreds of dollars would hold more content.
With 50GB Blu-Ray HD titles to store, getting more sets of 20 titles in each HD in a RAID is a lot more important than getting them faster than they can be played.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or in the vernacular: Crapload
Re:It's still not enough (Score:4, Funny)
Parent