4 ms·
True 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 de
by achow 3y ago
True 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.
- coder543 3y ago12 days would be adequate. This is archival storage, not high performance storage. However, I will emphasize again that CeraTape is further in the future, so it makes sense that Cerabyte would not be ready to discuss performance figures for that. What you’re continuously quoting is certainly referring to CeraMemory, the stuff they’re planning to release sooner in smaller capacities. 10PB at 10GB/s would be about 12 days. Even if it were 5GB/s, it would still be less than a month. A major trade off, to be sure, but I can definitely imagine applications where that would be acceptable if the cost were low and the durability were high. The real question is whether they can deliver what they’re promising at a reasonable price.
- readyplayernull 3y agoThe ultimate way to conceal data, just remember which index has your information, the rest is randomness.
- foota 3y agoJust hope someone doesn't have a good magnifying glass (I don't know if it's true of this, but many storage mediums leave a physical pattern that you can see, and randomness sticks out)
- TylerE 3y agoEncrypted data by any decent alt will be statistically indistinguishable from random noise.
- erik_seaberg 3y agoEven without encryption, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_code is common in archiving, and that tends to look pretty random. Obvious patterns don’t maximize the smallest differences between any possible messages.
- aziaziazi 3y agoLooks true > Data reading can be done with equipment using high-resolution microscopic imaging techniques or electron beam microscopy