6 ms·
Might be good enough for archival storage, though.
by AussieWog93 3y ago
Might 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.