5 ms·

> DNA synthesis remains a bottleneck in the adoption of DNA as a data storage medium. Yes, one of many. Another one is a simple question: What exactly is the

> DNA synthesis remains a bottleneck in the adoption of DNA as a data storage medium. Yes, one of many. Another one is a simple question: What exactly is the use case again? Because, storage isn't something we lack. Especially when talking about storage where, obviously, fast random access isn't a requirement, aka. data archiving. We have good solutions for that; an LTO-9 tape can hold 18TiB of data native and up to 45 TiB of data compressed, with denser capacities planned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open

Aardwolf 3y ago
Some number I found online, while trying to multiply the 30 trillion human cells with the data storage of DNA per cell: "one gram of dried DNA can store 455 exabytes of data" Seems like a pretty sweet use case to me! I definitely do lack storage by the way. Say I want to download the common crawl data set, 380 TiB. And for redundancy I'd need multiple copies of the data too. That's a lot of disks for in the home. "18TiB ought to be enough for everyone" really doensn't cut it.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > one gram of dried DNA can store 455 exabytes of data Yes, and half a gram of Hydrogen could produce ~500 Megawatts of power in a fusion reactor. However, that theoretical value will remain irrelevant, as long as we cannot build a practically useful fusion reactor. And even if we could build one, it still has to compete with all other forms of producing power for scalability, reliability, efficiency and cost. The fact that there is a very high theoretical number that seems really impressive, isn't a use case. So, with that being said: how long does it take to write these 455EiB? How long does it take to read them? How error prone are both processes? And how much does it cost to write/read them? > "18TiB ought to be enough for everyone" really doensn't cut it. Pretty sure I never said that. Also pretty sure common crawl can be compressed. Even assuming only a 2:1 compression rate, that means it fits comfortably on 11 LTO-9's. Now, a quick google-search churned out tape prices of about 110-140 $ per LTO-9. Let's say ~150$ per tape, that means the whole thing fit's on 1650 $ worth of storage. About 5000 bucks with 2 backups included. Double that for uncompressed storage. Alright, so how does that compare to DNA storage? https://www.nanalyze.com/2023/03/dna-data-storage-solution/ https://www.nanalyze.com/2023/03/dna-data-storage-solution/ quote: These days, it costs $600 to sequence a complete genome which contains around 200 gigabytes of data or about $3 per gig. Today, magnetic tape technology offers the lowest purchase price of raw storage capacity at around two cents per gigabyte end quote. So just reading the 380 TiB back from uncompressed storage ONCE, would cost ~1,140,000 dollars. And that's just for reading. At a price differential that is measured in multiple orders of magnitude, a technology better offer some REALLY good, REALLY tangible advantages to compete.
  - Aardwolf 3y ago
    I of course wouldn't want to store my data in there today, I wouldn't even trust that I get it back reliably because DNA reading comes with a relatively big error rate for storage purposes (of course error correction can mitigate that). But it would be cool if the technology progresses. All technology, including disks, magnetic tapes, and new alternatives. Whether DNA is viable in the end or not, I don't know. I do know that tech always has been progressing and new alternatives are sometimes found, and that I do see a use for more storage. But an argument whether DNA is a viable option in the future or not would have to say technically what the issue of DNA is with future tech. Whether it's more expensive today, or that there's no need for more data today, are not really arguments against it. I do not intend to be arguing for snake oil or anything here though. If "DNA storage" is in a similar category of "perpetual motion machines" and "cars that run on tap water" then count me out. I don't even know how our comments ended up being like arguing against each other. The only thing really I didn't agree with in the original comment was "Because, storage isn't something we lack", because I do find it lacking, both at home and in the cloud.
speed_spread 3y ago
Let's take a moment to appreciate how the classic "bandwidth of station wagon filled with tapes" scales with tape technology. Too bad there aren't many station wagon choices nowadays but I guess any minivan would do in a cinch.
pcrh 3y ago
Encode wikipedia into DNA, then insert it into a horseshoe crab. In a few million years it may still be around to be decoded. >The fossil record of Xiphosura goes back over 440 million years to the Ordovician period, with the oldest representatives of the modern family Limulidae dating to approximately 250 million years ago during the Early Triassic. As such, the extant forms have been described as "living fossils".[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab
- inciampati 3y ago
  And yet, in those 250 million years, it's very likely that the genome was completely rewritten. The phenotype of the organism is more stable than its genome. Not a shred of Wikipedia would be left after such a time scale.
  - pcrh 3y ago
    There's a lot of redundancy and "archaic" DNA in most multicellular organisms. I imagine that over 50% of wikipedia would still be present after a million years. The inserted wiki-DNA could also conceivably be constructed so as to ensure its own perpetuation.
piyh 3y ago
Can your tapes self replicate? /s The goal of replacing memory cards is dumb, the tech that enables the storage is a foundational step forward in bio engineering.

Aardwolf 3y ago

Some number I found online, while trying to multiply the 30 trillion human cells with the data storage of DNA per cell: "one gram of dried DNA can store 455 exabytes of data" Seems like a pretty sweet use case to me! I definitely do lack storage by the way. Say I want to download the common crawl data set, 380 TiB. And for redundancy I'd need multiple copies of the data too. That's a lot of disks for in the home. "18TiB ought to be enough for everyone" really doensn't cut it.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> one gram of dried DNA can store 455 exabytes of data Yes, and half a gram of Hydrogen could produce ~500 Megawatts of power in a fusion reactor. However, that theoretical value will remain irrelevant, as long as we cannot build a practically useful fusion reactor. And even if we could build one, it still has to compete with all other forms of producing power for scalability, reliability, efficiency and cost. The fact that there is a very high theoretical number that seems really impressive, isn't a use case. So, with that being said: how long does it take to write these 455EiB? How long does it take to read them? How error prone are both processes? And how much does it cost to write/read them? > "18TiB ought to be enough for everyone" really doensn't cut it. Pretty sure I never said that. Also pretty sure common crawl can be compressed. Even assuming only a 2:1 compression rate, that means it fits comfortably on 11 LTO-9's. Now, a quick google-search churned out tape prices of about 110-140 $ per LTO-9. Let's say ~150$ per tape, that means the whole thing fit's on 1650 $ worth of storage. About 5000 bucks with 2 backups included. Double that for uncompressed storage. Alright, so how does that compare to DNA storage? https://www.nanalyze.com/2023/03/dna-data-storage-solution/ https://www.nanalyze.com/2023/03/dna-data-storage-solution/ quote: These days, it costs $600 to sequence a complete genome which contains around 200 gigabytes of data or about $3 per gig. Today, magnetic tape technology offers the lowest purchase price of raw storage capacity at around two cents per gigabyte end quote. So just reading the 380 TiB back from uncompressed storage ONCE, would cost ~1,140,000 dollars. And that's just for reading. At a price differential that is measured in multiple orders of magnitude, a technology better offer some REALLY good, REALLY tangible advantages to compete.
- Aardwolf 3y ago
  I of course wouldn't want to store my data in there today, I wouldn't even trust that I get it back reliably because DNA reading comes with a relatively big error rate for storage purposes (of course error correction can mitigate that). But it would be cool if the technology progresses. All technology, including disks, magnetic tapes, and new alternatives. Whether DNA is viable in the end or not, I don't know. I do know that tech always has been progressing and new alternatives are sometimes found, and that I do see a use for more storage. But an argument whether DNA is a viable option in the future or not would have to say technically what the issue of DNA is with future tech. Whether it's more expensive today, or that there's no need for more data today, are not really arguments against it. I do not intend to be arguing for snake oil or anything here though. If "DNA storage" is in a similar category of "perpetual motion machines" and "cars that run on tap water" then count me out. I don't even know how our comments ended up being like arguing against each other. The only thing really I didn't agree with in the original comment was "Because, storage isn't something we lack", because I do find it lacking, both at home and in the cloud.

speed_spread 3y ago

Let's take a moment to appreciate how the classic "bandwidth of station wagon filled with tapes" scales with tape technology. Too bad there aren't many station wagon choices nowadays but I guess any minivan would do in a cinch.

pcrh 3y ago

Encode wikipedia into DNA, then insert it into a horseshoe crab. In a few million years it may still be around to be decoded. >The fossil record of Xiphosura goes back over 440 million years to the Ordovician period, with the oldest representatives of the modern family Limulidae dating to approximately 250 million years ago during the Early Triassic. As such, the extant forms have been described as "living fossils".[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_crab

inciampati 3y ago
And yet, in those 250 million years, it's very likely that the genome was completely rewritten. The phenotype of the organism is more stable than its genome. Not a shred of Wikipedia would be left after such a time scale.
- pcrh 3y ago
  There's a lot of redundancy and "archaic" DNA in most multicellular organisms. I imagine that over 50% of wikipedia would still be present after a million years. The inserted wiki-DNA could also conceivably be constructed so as to ensure its own perpetuation.

piyh 3y ago

Can your tapes self replicate? /s The goal of replacing memory cards is dumb, the tech that enables the storage is a foundational step forward in bio engineering.