Turing Award Winner On The Future of Storage
weileong writes "Ars Technica highlights an interview at ACM Queue with Jim Gray, a winner of the ACM Turing award *(among other things) by one of the pioneers of RAID (among other things). Many issues touched upon, including: "programmers have to start thinking of the disk as a sequential device rather than a random access device." "So disks are not random access any more?" "That's one of the things that more or less everybody is gravitating toward. The idea of a log-structured file system is much more attractive. There are many other architectural changes that we'll have to consider in disks with huge capacity and limited bandwidth."
Actual interview has MUCH detail, definitely worth reading."
I think we'd all be better off when solid state, non-mechanical disks become commonplace.
Is there any reason other than cost why we can't have 100Gb solid-state drives yet?
Get your own free personal location tracker
they are part of Internet 2, Virtual Business Networks (VBNs), and the Next Generation Internet (NGI). Even so, it takes them a long time to copy a gigabyte. Copy a terabyte? It takes them a very, very long time across the networks they have
Is this really true? Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story where researchers transfered a gigabyte of data, in fourteen seconds or so, on Internet 2 from California to the Netherlands?
I suppose that disk access times will be limiting factor in both ends if you were to read and write the data from/to a disk.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
This doesn't just affect file storage and virtual memory. It also changes the economics of cache and main memory, and makes deployment of 64-bit CPUs more urgent. It also makes system crashes much less tolerable, because turning the computer off and on doesn't involve long shutdown and boot procedures any more.
Anyone know what happened to that bloke at keele who
invented a way of cramming 3 Terrabytes on a credit card. Apparently it would have cost about 35 pounds to manufacture. this was a couple of years ago, why hasnt it happened yet?
Surely something like this is the real future of storage ?
Terrabyte on a credit card
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
With an ever growing collection of digital photos, I've come to the same conclusion as Jim Gray. Hard disks are superior for backups.
I currently have about 100 GB of images and it takes more than 20 4.7 GB DVD-R discs to create a full backup. Although DVD media is still slightly cheaper than new large capacity IDE drives, the added time and hassle factor of burning 20 disks far out weighs any minor costs savings. Moreover a 3.5" drive in a padded anti-static bag takes up less room in the safe deposit box than 20 DVDs (especially if you have the DVDs in protective jewel cases). And if HD-based-backup lets me avoid some future artists tax on burnable media, so much the better.
A Firewire enclosure and a rotating collection of IDE drives is the way to go.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Interesting thought popped when i read your post,
there is a current trend towards cramming as much storage into something the size of a 3in Hard drive.
I wonder why they dont make larger harddrives in the physical sense? A hard drive the size of a washing machine using todays technology would store a phenomenal amount of stuff, but whatabout something more reasonable like a hard drive merely twice the physical size of todays. how much more storage could you get just by scaling up the platters? anyone here good at math . Hard drives today must be up to 200-250gb.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp