3 ms·
Even if a machine can store 50 TB (say 5TB in subsequent years10 disks), to store 1 yottabyte (10^12 TB), you would need 210^10 machines, or 10 billion machines
by madiator 13y ago
Even if a machine can store 50 TB (say 5TB in subsequent years10 disks), to store 1 yottabyte (10^12 TB), you would need 210^10 machines, or 10 billion machines. And I can't even start to think of the datacenter network topology..
- epistasis 13y agoWhat do you mean by "machine"? Your point is well taken, however. You can fit 80 3.5" drives in a commodity 4U enclosure, say 3.2 PB raw per rack with 4TB hard drives and only two head nodes. Then we only need a mere 312,000,000 racks to get to a yottabyte. At 30 square feet per rack, that's 10 billion square feet, or 360 square miles. So. I think the 'yotta' is either anticipating a massive improvement in storage density, or the Wikipedia editor was a bit off...
- MrDOS 13y ago> At 30 square feet per rack, that's 10 billion square feet, or 360 square miles. ...with no redundancy whatsoever, and that's raw capacity, not usable. Crazy talk.
- iand 13y agoThe goal may not to make it all accessible simultaneously. They may archive to disk then remove the disks when they are full and put in storage.
- epistasis 13y agoAt 80 drives in 4U, removing the drives from racks is only going to improve density by a small percentage. Perhaps by removing any walking space between the racks you could bring it down to 180 square miles from 360. HDD are more volumetrically dense than tape. Any way you look at it, a yottabyte is going to occupy an enormous amount of physical space.