5 ms·
> CeraMemory cartridges (2025-30) storing between 10 PB and 100 PB, and its CeraTape (2030-35) with up to 1 EB capacity per tape. > Cerabyte says its technolog
by thomastjeffery 3y ago
> CeraMemory cartridges (2025-30) storing between 10 PB and 100 PB, and its CeraTape (2030-35) with up to 1 EB capacity per tape.
> Cerabyte says its technology can read and write data at GB/s class speeds.
1EB = 1,000 PB = 1,000,000 TB = 1,000,000,000 GB
To read the 10PB cartridge at:
1GB/sec = 115.740.. days
10GB/sec = 277.7.. hours
100GB/sec = 27.7.. hours
To read the 1EB tape at:
1GB/sec = 31.7 years
10GB/sec = 3.17 years
100GB/sec = 115.7 days
1TB/sec = 11.57 days
10TB/sec = 1.2 days
- AussieWog93 3y agoMight be good enough for archival storage, though.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoAn archive that takes 30 years to write... What would you write it from?
- nine_k 3y agoAny constant stream of data, from seismographs and radio telescopes to surveillance cameras.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoYou have 1GB/sec of that in one place?
- toast0 3y agoWould be useful if you wanted to archive many tv stations at once (and never actually go back to watch them)
- nine_k 3y agoOr maybe go back to them in a rare case, like a criminal case investigation.
- AussieWog93 3y agoThat's what I was thinking. Like the BBC archives. Who really cares if it takes 6 months to unarchive an entire decade of TV history?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- magicalhippo 3y agoCHIME telescope has a raw data rate of 1PB/day[1], or roughly 11GB/s. They use three levels of on-site processing since they can't store that much data. The LHC had a data rate of over 40TB/s and even after the low-level triggers of over 100GB/s back in 2016[2]. Again they're forced to throw away most of it due to lack of storage. This means someone looking for a novel signal can't just scan through the archives. I'm sure science instrument groups like the ones mentioned would have loved to be able to store more data. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 [2]: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044713 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nucl-...
- Already__Taken 3y agoradio telescope arrays can probably pull that much.
- achow 3y agoTrue if full 'tape' is read sequentially. These kind of storage are indexed, one can jump directly to relevant sections and access the data. Large storage density usually helps in efficiency of mounting & dismounting of media.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoIn other words: you don't have to wait for slow read times if you don't bother reading the data at all! You still need to live with the slow write times, though. What's the point of even building a single unit of tape storage if it will take you a minimum of 30 years to write your data to it? Why not just make 1 million smaller ones?
- coder543 3y agoYou’ve now repeated this “30 years to write” thing in several places. It’s frankly obvious that the 1EB tape would have faster write speeds than that, and repeatedly pretending otherwise doesn’t make a compelling discussion. Taking decades to read or write a single storage device would make that storage device completely worthless for obvious reasons. CeraTape is further into the future compared to CeraMemory, so it’s completely understandable that they wouldn’t be ready to talk about the read/write performance of CeraTape yet. However, it is fun to imagine an audit logging server that is able to operate for 30 years continuously without having to swap the storage. Just write, write, write. The odds of an audit log ever needing to be read are usually quite low, but if it is ever called upon, you’d be able to quickly jump to the point in time of interest and recover the relevant audit logs from potentially decades of logs.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago> It’s frankly obvious that the 1EB tape would have faster write speeds than that, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make a compelling discussion. OK, so I should assume the max of "GB/s speeds"? 999GB/sec would still take 11-12 days! --- Even if we do limit to 1GB/sec, that's a lot of data to be logging, even if it's raw video. It would be neat to have that as a sort of infinite throwaway chache, though, but I can't imagine really using more than a petabyte or two.
- ksec 3y agoCan I have a tiny fraction of it? I want a consumer tape drive, or the revival of Zip disk /MO Disk that is in TB rage that last a few hundred years.
- freetanga 3y agoJust curious, but Wouldn’t you call a NMVE enclosure with TB3 or 4 a sufficient ZIP drive reencarnation?
- ksec 3y agoWe are looking at $149 for 4TB SSD. That is close to affordable. The only problem is current NAND price are abnormal and I dont expect this price to last. So that is the first problem, price / GB isn't quite there yet. 2nd being NAND quality varies a lot and are not battle tested as long term storage solution. Would I still need to have ZFS Storage for my SSD just in case? If so why not use HDD instead? May be NAND will get there. But judging from the industry roadmap I have seen it wont happen for another 5 - 6 years.
- tatersolid 3y agoNo. Flash memory loses its data after just a few years unless regularly scrubbed an re-written (which in turn burns through your write cycles).
- reacharavindh 3y agoThroughput is usually a workable problem. Throw in a bunch of these devices and stripe your writes across them - now when you read, you get nice improvements in throughput. Look at ZFS VDEVs for example. If they are inexpensive, and durable to be considered archival quality, it will find its place.. somewhere between NVME drives and the magnetic tapes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thomastjeffery 3y agoSo let's think this through: you have 10 1EB tape drivers in a RAID0. Each drive has a max throughput of 100GB/sec, so the array has a max throughput of 1TB/sec. Congratulations, now you can write 1EB of data to your array in 1.2 days! But what about the other 9 Exabytes? Yeah, it will still take another 114.5 days to even touch that; and that's assuming "GB/s class speeds" means 100GB/s, and not less. You may as well just get 10 100PB disks. There is no point getting extra storage that you will never have time to write to.
- m3kw9 3y agoIf it’s that durable they can do raid 0 on it with 50 tapes. Can it?
- eternityforest 3y agoEven at 1MB/s it would be amazing (If it ever made it to consumer level stuff) you could just have it auto-archive anything on a cache disk that hadn't been touched in a year in the background.
- jl6 3y agoMy reading of the abstract was that the “initial 10 PB systems” would be racks. You can build or buy a 10PB rack today, based on conventional HDDs. So these ceramic cartridges would have similar density to existing HDDs, and presumably stuffing a lot of them into a rack brings the opportunity for some I/O parallelism. The extraordinary claim here is that the technology can scale by 10x over 5 years, and then also be applied to tape, all while being much cheaper. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims…
- choppaface 3y agoPCI-E might approach that 1TB/sec number by the time CeraMemory ships. And 10ish days isn’t unreasonably long for model training (a bit long for first epoch though). https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pcie-70-to-reach-512-gbs-arrive-in-2025 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pcie-70-to-reach-512-gbs-a...
- pmcf 3y agoSame argument applies when I hear people say “we can just do an ETL job.” And why storage is so cheap in the cloud. Once you get a lot, it’s hard and expensive to move. And definitely why things like AWS Snowmobile exist.