3 ms·
The title could use some changes in wording, but "In contrast to data usually stored on the best hard drives and the best SSDs of today..." was clearly referrin
by mattashii 3y ago
The title could use some changes in wording, but "In contrast to data usually stored on the best hard drives and the best SSDs of today..." was clearly referring to the data retention time of those media, and that is indeed often quoted as being on the order of years, not thousands of years, for HDD/SSD data carriers. I'd say that's quite contrasting indeed, if that ceramic storage can keep its promise of 5000 years data retention.
- rowanG077 3y agoI always wonder about what we will do for reading. It's not easy to read back a few decade old tape even if the tape is pristine. You would really have to scavenge for a working tape drive. Multiply that timeframe and I really don't see how having it being stored for thousands of years as that appealing.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> was clearly referring to the data retention time of those media, and that is indeed often quoted as being on the order of years, not thousands of years Correct, but the primary reason those technologies have shorter retention times is because they are rewritable. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison that doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if the article was clear that this was about improving archival storage options, and then comparing to things like CDs/DVDs, tape, and film.
- mlyle 3y agoThey have shorter retention times not because they are rewritable, but because: * HDDs fail, or these days helium leaks out at end of lifespan. * SSDs slowly have the data leak out of floating cells.