3 ms·

Researchers at Fuji Film in Japan and IBM in Zurich, Switzerland, have already built prototypes that can store 35 terabytes of data - or about 35 million books'

Researchers at Fuji Film in Japan and IBM in Zurich, Switzerland, have already built prototypes that can store 35 terabytes of data - or about 35 million books' worth of information - on a cartridge that measures just 10cm x 10cm x 2cm. This is achieved using magnetic tape coated in particles of barium ferrite. Where does the gain in storage density come from, New Scientist? This article is so breathless to capture the linkbait of using old technology that just about any useful info has been left out. The prototype, at about 4" x 4" x 0.75", is just larger than a desktop HDD, and can hold about 8.5 times as much data as a 4TB 3.5" HDD. Does barium ferrite allow for tighter magnetic fields, which would allow for a higher data density? If so, is that material being used in spinning disk HDDs? And how does this extremely physically complex system stack up against SSDs, as they lower in cost?

johngalt 14y ago
Tape has always been denser geometrically than HDDs. More surface area on a reel vs a platter. SSDs would be the opposite of tape. Big$/GB low latency vs. Low$/GB high latency. Obviously SSDs would replace almost all other media if it could beat tape on $/GB.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  When you consider the $/GB, do you consider the cost of operating these as mechanical devices - mechanical wear and fatigue, increased electricity usage, administrative costs (tape storage, space for robot to work, robot repairs, etc), and possibility of damage (dropped tapes)?
  - johngalt 14y ago
    Yes of course those are considered and the results may surprise you. One of the beautiful things about tapes is that you can store them unpowered. All you power is the robot(s) and the drive(s). 100 tapes sitting idle in a silo will last much longer than 100 hard drives spinning at 7200rpm. SSD's failure rates are even higher than HDDs.
ibmzrl 14y ago
Here is more detail on the demonstration with Fuji. http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/10/storage.html http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/10/storage.html And here is a scientific paper on Scaling tape- recording areal densities to 100 Gb/in2 http://signallake.com/innovation/argumedo.pdf http://signallake.com/innovation/argumedo.pdf

johngalt 14y ago

Tape has always been denser geometrically than HDDs. More surface area on a reel vs a platter. SSDs would be the opposite of tape. Big$/GB low latency vs. Low$/GB high latency. Obviously SSDs would replace almost all other media if it could beat tape on $/GB.

stephengillie 14y ago
When you consider the $/GB, do you consider the cost of operating these as mechanical devices - mechanical wear and fatigue, increased electricity usage, administrative costs (tape storage, space for robot to work, robot repairs, etc), and possibility of damage (dropped tapes)?
- johngalt 14y ago
  Yes of course those are considered and the results may surprise you. One of the beautiful things about tapes is that you can store them unpowered. All you power is the robot(s) and the drive(s). 100 tapes sitting idle in a silo will last much longer than 100 hard drives spinning at 7200rpm. SSD's failure rates are even higher than HDDs.

ibmzrl 14y ago

Here is more detail on the demonstration with Fuji. http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/10/storage.html http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/10/storage.html And here is a scientific paper on Scaling tape- recording areal densities to 100 Gb/in2 http://signallake.com/innovation/argumedo.pdf http://signallake.com/innovation/argumedo.pdf