Slashdot Mirror
300 gigabytes in the size of a DVD?
Rollie Hawk writes "Although storage space is no longer the premium it once was, physical backups and external media have been slow to catch up. While recordable DVDs may be fine for backing up a single workstation, large servers are still forced to rely on swappable drives and tape backups. But holographic disc technology could be changing all of that in the very near future. Holographic Versatile Discs (HVDs) have been in the works for some time now by various companies, including InPhase Technologies (formerly part of Lucent) and Japan's Optware (which claimed to have made the first recording of a movie on a holographic disc last year). InPhase's HVDs, scheduled for release in 2006, are said to hold 300GB of data, 60 times that of a conventional DVD with only a slight increase in size. That translates to more than a day's worth of HD-quality video. Not to mention the drives themselves can read and write at ten times the speed a normal DVD drive. One of InPhase's partners in HVD research, Maxell, is working towards even more storage on a 1.6TB disc."
Turner Network Television recently aired a commercial off of the InPhase Tapestry drive. Maxell built that drive for InPhase.
Data backup has become very expensive for some of my customers. The amount of data a company of even minimal size (50 employees) goes through in a day blows my mind. We've been investing every option but none are cost effective (except when a hard drive goes).
My dilemma is that as backup storage (such as the HVD) gets bigger, it seems that hard drives quickly outpace the new form of backup storage. 1.6TB discs sound great, yet I'm weary of having that much data on an easy to break/burn/steal disc. 300GB is more feasible as I can see making a few copies of the backup "just in case."
Nonetheless, the write speeds listed don't seem all that great, and what interfaces will let us copy data at those speeds? Moving 1.6TG of data off of a server without slowing down user access (24 hours per day with offshore employees) sounds like it will still take hours and hours to back up (if not longer). A recovery stage would take even longer.
For now, I'm happiest with redundancy backups. I don't like mirroring or RAIDx/y or clusters (too many nightmares over the 15 years I've worked with all of it), but having a server dupe itself daily has given us the best turnover and safety margins we've seen, as well as being very cost effective compared to use-once media or (shudder) tapes.
This stuff has been a year or two away as long as I can remember. Someone wake me up when product actually ships...
TODO: Something witty here...
It's not just that it's a fast drive. It goes well beyond the current method of spinning the disc faster and(or) putting the data closer together to increase performance.
"Unlike other technologies, that record one data bit at a time, holography allows a million bits of data to be written and read in parallel with a single flash of light," says Liz Murphy, of InPhase Technologies. "This enables transfer rates significantly higher than current optical storage devices."
That's pretty wild for a single "head" drive. I wonder if this could translate into devices similar to hard drives using similar methods. Hard disks are what I feel is holding back system performance. It's almost always the biggest bottleneck in a system, and has been more or less at a platoe for years, mainly because magnetic media can only do so much in a serial manor.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Hmm, maybe now they can put the entire Lord of the Rings Triliogy on one disc. now, if you want to put in the extra features, that is a different story...
"The article notes that the transfer rate is at an average of 1 gigabit/second. That is equal to 0.125 gigabytes/second, or 128 megabytes/second, which is a large leap over earlier storage mediums, whose transfer rates are generally measured in Kilobytes/second. In comparison, a 56x CD-ROM drive transfers at up to 8.4 Megabytes/second, and 16x-speed DVDs transfer at 22 Megabytes/second."
That is impressive indeed. But I have a question regarding the random errors etc due to statistical variation. How much resources do you have to devote for error correction (eg parity bit etc) ? And wouldn't it be very power consuming to do error correction at such a high data transfer rate ?
Is 300 GB necessary? From a content producer standpoint, I don't want to be able to fit that much content on a single disc... then I can't charge as much for the special 4-disc pre-Christmas release edition.
From a consumer standpoint, I don't need this either, unless I want to archive all my files, in which case it's easier (and cheaper) to have a second hard drive.
I understand there is demand for high-volume storage solutions, but I can't see a mass market for them...
What I do see being very, very useful is the speed upgrade for r/w -- especially for gaming, but I'm sure this applies to other areas as well.
IMO, though, I don't see a big enough demand for this to become profitable for quite a long time -- especially if Bluray or HD-DVD is 'good enough' for the average user.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Plenty of people already do error correction at line speed on gigabit communications links with low power costs. To someone developing coding schemes, storage devices can just be modeled as another communications channel.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Once the MPAA, RIAA and every other cultural cartel gets a hold of this, it will die like the DAT tape.
They should just release it as a means of backing up data and then figure out the copy protection.
-We get a new storage medium.
-They squable for 5 years.
-Then *MAYBE* they come out with a larger capacity disks with DRM for TVs/movies
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Even if it is a small change in physical size for the media I'm not too hot on that. I like how our DVD storage is the same size as the previous generation of CDs. The result is that all of my data recorded on CD-R from 8 years ago is still readable and I use it from time to time on our new drives... You can't say that for many other optical or magnetic storage media of odd sizes. Zip Disks, SuperDisks, Jaz Drives... Maybe they're going for a different market, but you think these folks would leave their options open.
There are also good things to be said about leaving the past behind, and not keeping the same physical form factor.
Opinions?
If you could angle it at around 15degrees you could fit it in. Not sure how that would affect the centripetal force as the disc spins though.
Cool, now I can lose all of my data by just misplacing a single disk. Ain't that grand?
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
I could imagine that those things would be great for doing backups, but: Will they be reliable ?
When writable DVDs and DVD burners got affordable I was thrilled at first: Finally being able to backup several GB of data to one not too expensive disk instead of on a stack of CD-Rs ! But then reality hit: Compatibility problems between individual brands of burners and brands of media, quality problems with media, even worse durability than CD-Rs; altogether more or less a total gamble if you want to do backups with that stuff. Now my DVD burners collect dust or are mostly used as CD burners only. So what is a high capacity medium good for if it is not reliable besides making expensive coasters and wall clocks ?
Why not? Old floppies are 13.33cm in diameter.
I'm a little confused by some of the responses I'm seeing here. It seems most people think that this new technology would be a bad thing? The largest complaint I've seen so far is: "What if I lose the disk?" I don't know about you guys, but for me this isn't much different then anything else in the world. If your backup is important... don't lose it!
If needed, I have some handy solutions to solve the "How do I not lose my disk" problem.
1. Put it some place that you can remember.
2. If it's super important, make two backups.
3. Tie a string around your finger to remind you to always remember where you put your disk.
4. Ask somebody more responsible than yourself to watch over it for you.
And if none of these work...
5. Buy a small cable. Run the cable through the hole in the center of the disk. Buy a small padlock. Padlock the cable around a large object. Make multiple copies of the padlock key and tape them in various places.
Obviously this is not practical, but it is about as practical as thinking that a new technology is bad because you might misplace it.
Once again, the post-office will become the king of high latency high bandwidth. Hollywood should quake in their boots over this, not on-line file sharing.
If these things are inexpensive enough ond can imagine peer-to-peer postal networks popping up. Say you record half of something on on DVD, and you send it to someone. They send you back half of something, and then you send the other half and so-on. tit for tat.
The problem with the above concept is that it requires the sender and the receiver to actually haveing something each other actually wanted to exchange. But if the disks get big enough you could easily put many things on them increasing the probability that one or more things on their will be something someone else wants to share. It costs you no extra postage to send 1 thing as 100 things now.
So this might blow that wide open. And sharing 100 to 1000 movies per 32 cent stamp, or sharing every single top 40 song for the last 100 years on a single Disk and it wont take long before everyone has every song and movie.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
5.25" = 13.34 cm.
Why wouldn't you be able to fit a disc having a diameter of 13cm in a 5.25" enclosure ?
You can't fit a 13cm disc drive into a standard enclosure! Who do they think they're going to sell these to!
Laser disk diehards!
the enclosure is 14.6 cm wide.
This is moronic. This is annoying. I am beside myself with frustration. (Well, not really. --I don't actually care.)
The fundamental truth of the matter is that the technology which is readily possible, and the technology which is actually made available to the public, are decades apart. After all. . , why nip the spirit of profit in the bud when you can produce and sell entire production runs of stone-age computer tech one incrementally advanced stage after another? Heck, this keeps the economy 'healthy' during peace times, ensures jobs and an appetite for more and more junk technology. "Planned Obsolescence" is reality.
When everybody gets all excited about the big "new" thing, I groan. We're being led on and sold crap because there are miles and miles of money to be made between now and when the really good stuff is released, which of course, only happens when it doesn't matter anymore.
So who cares? Just let me have enough technology to do what I need to do. Those needs were well met about five years ago, so honestly, I don't really care about any new so-called 'advances'.
And the band plays on. . .
-FL