5 ms·

So 64 bit address is only 1024 16TB HDDs? That number may go down quickly. There is a 100TB SSD already.

ijlx 4y ago
1024*1024 16TB HDDs, or 1,048,576.
oofbey 4y ago
1,000,000 drives at 16 TB each I think. Kilo is 10 bits. Mega 20. Gigs 30. Tera 40. 16TB is 44 bits. 1000* is another 10 bits so 54.
infinityio 4y ago
Not quite - 1024GiB is 1TiB, so it's 1024 x 1024 x 16TiB drives
Beltiras 4y ago
As my siblings are pointing out your error they are not addressing what you are saying. You are absolutely correct. It's conceivable within a few years to fit this much storage in one device (might be a full rack full of disks but still).
- ksec 4y ago
  The highest density storage is currently 1PB in 1U, fitting 40PB in a Rack. We expect to reach 100PB in 2025, with some futuristic roadmap of 200PB in 2030, assuming we could yield those NAND. And a thousand layers NAND to reach 500PB in 2035. That is still an order of magnitude smaller than 16EiB. So no, not in a few years time.
  - guenthert 4y ago
    One thing is storage density, another is data transfer rate. Frontier's LustreFS based mind-boggling 700PB Orion storage subsystem writes at a similarly impressive 5TB/s [1]; so with a generous reading, it could potentially fill up in about 39h. Historically, disk density increased more rapidly than network bandwidth, which ultimately limits the performance of distributed file systems. If it takes weeks or months to write such enormous data set, then there will be only few use cases, if it takes years there will be none. [1] https://www.ornl.gov/news/frontier-supercomputer-debuts-worlds-fastest-breaking-exascale-barrier https://www.ornl.gov/news/frontier-supercomputer-debuts-worl...
    - guenthert 4y ago
      > network bandwidth, which ultimately limits the performance of distributed file systems. Oops, that's nonsense. I had my coffee now...
lostmsu 4y ago
Ah, parent already corrected their mistake. The comment I was responding to was saying 16*1024*1024*1GB.

ijlx 4y ago

1024*1024 16TB HDDs, or 1,048,576.

1,000,000 drives at 16 TB each I think. Kilo is 10 bits. Mega 20. Gigs 30. Tera 40. 16TB is 44 bits. 1000* is another 10 bits so 54.

infinityio 4y ago

Not quite - 1024GiB is 1TiB, so it's 1024 x 1024 x 16TiB drives

Beltiras 4y ago

As my siblings are pointing out your error they are not addressing what you are saying. You are absolutely correct. It's conceivable within a few years to fit this much storage in one device (might be a full rack full of disks but still).

ksec 4y ago
The highest density storage is currently 1PB in 1U, fitting 40PB in a Rack. We expect to reach 100PB in 2025, with some futuristic roadmap of 200PB in 2030, assuming we could yield those NAND. And a thousand layers NAND to reach 500PB in 2035. That is still an order of magnitude smaller than 16EiB. So no, not in a few years time.
- guenthert 4y ago
  One thing is storage density, another is data transfer rate. Frontier's LustreFS based mind-boggling 700PB Orion storage subsystem writes at a similarly impressive 5TB/s [1]; so with a generous reading, it could potentially fill up in about 39h. Historically, disk density increased more rapidly than network bandwidth, which ultimately limits the performance of distributed file systems. If it takes weeks or months to write such enormous data set, then there will be only few use cases, if it takes years there will be none. [1] https://www.ornl.gov/news/frontier-supercomputer-debuts-worlds-fastest-breaking-exascale-barrier https://www.ornl.gov/news/frontier-supercomputer-debuts-worl...
  - guenthert 4y ago
    > network bandwidth, which ultimately limits the performance of distributed file systems. Oops, that's nonsense. I had my coffee now...

lostmsu 4y ago

Ah, parent already corrected their mistake. The comment I was responding to was saying 16*1024*1024*1GB.