3 ms·
Putting a few of their numbers together seems to imply a read bandwidth of 24 Tbps (330 terabytes = 330*8 terabits/tape, tape length = 1098 meters => 2.4 terabi
by scott00 9y ago
Putting a few of their numbers together seems to imply a read bandwidth of 24 Tbps (330 terabytes = 330*8 terabits/tape, tape length = 1098 meters => 2.4 terabits/meter, tape speed = 10 m/s => 24 Tb/s). Which to me is way more interesting than the total storage size. Of course I have no idea what you could actually feed that into, it far exceeds CPU memory bandwidth, let alone SCSI or PCIE. Do these things not actually run at full speed for more than a fraction of a second?
- monocasa 9y agoWe're no where near 330TB tapes. This was an announcement that they were able to, in a lab, make a few inches of what would be a 330TB tape. The idea is that when we're at a place where you can reliably manufacture 330TB tapes, fibre channel (or whatever we have then for SAN interconnects) will have caught up.
- scott00 9y agoI realize this is a long way off from production. I guess what I was saying is I think the notion that we may have a 24 Tbps tape drive in 10 years more interesting than the notion that we may have a 330 TB tape drive in 10 years. And I'm wondering if my logic for the bandwidth is faulty, or if that might actually be doable with this technology (eventually).