4 ms·

You’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 repea

You’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 ago
  12 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.

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 ago
12 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.