Slashdot Mirror


27 Billion Gigabytes to be Archived by 2010

Lucas123 writes "According to a Computerworld survey of IT managers, data storage projects are the No. 2 project priority for corporations in 2008, up from No. 4 in 2007. IT teams are looking into clustered architectures and centralized storage-area networks as one way to control capacity growth, shifting away from big-iron storage and custom applications. The reason for the data avalanche? Archive data. In the private sector alone electronic archives will take up 27,000 petabytes (27 billion gigabytes) by 2010. E-mail growth accounts for much of that figure."

46 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. We have the prefixes, why not use them? by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Informative

    In other words, 27 Exabytes?

    Note to science and tech journalists: please stop stringing together "millions" and "billions" in an attempt to make the numbers seem large, impressive, and incomprehensible. Scientific notation and SI exist for a reason.

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by mincognito · · Score: 4, Funny

      Note to science and tech journalists: please stop stringing together "millions" and "billions" in an attempt to make the numbers seem large, impressive, and incomprehensible. Scientific notation and SI exist for a reason.
      Exactly! For the thousandth time, let's cut out the exaggerated and sensational writing Slashdot! If I had a dollar for every sensational headline I've read here, not to mention the gazillion overstated comments I read here per day, I'd be a billionaire by now!
    2. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by phoebusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SI does exist for a reason: to allow for short, precise, descriptive, standardized measurements. However, the point of the numbers in this article is to show how absurdly large this amount of data really is. This isn't a scientific paper, it's a piece of journalism. In that case, there's nothing wrong with using numbers that aren't completely reduced to demonstrate scale.

    3. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by thomasdz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but before the 1985 "Back to the Future" movie came out, how many "general public" people knew the prefix "Giga"? That's when I started hearing regular people start to use it.
      We gotta start using the prefixes before they start to become common. I'd rather see "27 Exabytes" followed by a parenthetical comment saying (27 Billion GigaBytes)

      --
      Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    4. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, you'd only be a thousand millionaire.

    5. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but in Back to the Future, there wasn't a real need to explain how large "giga" really was, it was just there as a scientific-sounding buzzword. So whilst using the term in this article might have made people become familiar with the word, they wouldn't have any idea what size it actually meant.

      People didn't become familiar with Gigabyte because of Back to the Future anyway, they are familiar with it because that's what they now buy hard drives and ipods in. When they are sold in Exabytes, you'll see the term used in journalism too.

    6. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note to science and tech journalists: please stop stringing together "millions" and "billions" in an attempt to make the numbers seem large, impressive, and incomprehensible.


      Joe Sixpacks digest technobabble at a rate that is relevant to them. While few would know what an Exabyte is, most would know what a Gigabyte is since they deal with numbers that size in relation to their own computing systems. I think it's less writing for sensationalism than it is writing in a language your audience will understand.
    7. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 2, Informative

      SI only seems to exist outside the UK and the US -- talking about the ordinary people.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    8. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      his isn't a scientific paper, it's a piece of journalism. In that case, there's nothing wrong with using numbers that aren't completely reduced to demonstrate scale.

      No, standard != wrong.

      In this case, there's precisely the same thing wrong that is with all of journalism: use specific language constructs to push certain emotional messages along with information. AKA manipulation.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    9. Re:We have the prefixes, why not use them? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm fairly sure he was saying 1.21 Jigawatts anyway

      That's just a different way of pronouncing Gigawatts :)

  2. So, in other words... by thesymbolicfrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the summary:
    "E-mail growth accounts for much of that figure."

    We're archiving spam?

    1. Re:So, in other words... by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're archiving spam?

      Which raises a question I find interesting, do we check for redundancy when archiving mails, in a way so that we can save a hell of a lot of space on spam (and other legitimate automated messages), since spam is by definition essentially the same message sent to a number of persons. Also, couldn't correlating stored mails for redundancy allow for better spam identification (although it would be no silver bullet since legitimate automated messages are often redundant).

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:So, in other words... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good Spamers uses multiple methods of fooling spam scans.

      ~They use pictures of text, instead of text, so it takes more effort to filter based on content.

      ~They use random text at the bottom of their message to give the filter something to read.

      ~They generate random noise to superimpose over the picture. Every batch has a different noise layer.


      I'm sure they do more [IANASB - spam bot - so I wouldn't know the details] but the slight differences between what WE would perceive as the same message foil both the spam filters and your plan of reducing redundancy. If you find a way to implement your idea, please release it as FOSS! I'm sure you could get a Nobel Peace prize out of it, or at least some free (as in beer) drinks! :)

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    3. Re:So, in other words... by goodtim · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, I have a partial answer to this question. As a sysadmin for a Novell GroupWise email system, I can tell you that the actually message data for duplicate incoming messages (such as spam that is sent to many people at the same time) are only stored on disk once. Some sort of "pointer" is used to reference the messages to the individual users mailboxe's. Check out the docs if you are interested.

      That said with about 1400 users (spread across multiple postoffices), we have probably about 400gb of email data. We are able to keep it low, by having a 120 day retention policy. After that point, email can be archived locally, otherwise its deleted. Independant of that, and to comply with regulations and disaster recovery scenarios, email data is backed up and replicated offsite using disk-to-disk backup (eVault in case anyone is interested).

      This gives us the ability to archive email for up to 27 years or something like that (with relatively low storage costs because the disk-to-disk is incremental, storing changes at the per-block level).

      As for Microsoft Exchange, I have not the slightest clue how data is stored.

      --
      "Flee at once, all is discovered."
    4. Re:So, in other words... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm simply saying, the same thing that stops spam from being blocked in the first place stops your idea from coming to fruition. Millions of almost, but not quite, the exact same Nigerian scams are sent/stored without us having the ability of accurately checking for redundancy. With ~95% of all email being spam, you could make millions if you developed a program/process for correctly identifying multiple emails that are almost, but not quite, the exact same email CORRECTLY as spam, instead of let's say... a forwarded quiz with answers about yourself that is almost, but not exactly, the same email as the original quiz with your friend's answers (or, insert your example here). Do that, and you not only have found a way to check for redundancy in email storage, you have found a way to stop the redundancy (or, ~95% of the redundancy) from happening in the first place (I'm sorry, the lameness filter has kicked in, please stop attempting to send spam through this email address).

      So, no, I'm not rejecting your idea outright. I'm saying that by the time it is possible, it won't be AS needed.

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    5. Re:So, in other words... by LoudMusic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the summary:
      "E-mail growth accounts for much of that figure."

      We're archiving spam? No, we have associates using their email as a file storage device - sending documents to eachother through email rather than just sending an email that says "Your 38MB file is on the file server in /X/here/where/there/document.type".
      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    6. Re:So, in other words... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You're just nitpicking ;-)"

      Ummm, no. I have CS degree and 20yrs experience. What you are talking about is the attacking the problem of redundant information by comparing blocks, this has already been 'solved'. ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. E-mail growth... by Urger · · Score: 5, Funny

    E-mail growth accounts for much of that figure.

    They should have that looked at. A good dermatologist could remove it.
  4. Distributed Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some big projects are generating too many data that they have problems to deal with all that.
    For example the Folding@home is implementing a distributed storage mechanism for their data and we'll likely have a new @home project soon - Storage@home.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage@home
    http://www.stanford.edu/~beberg/Storage@home2007.pdf
    http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers#ntoc7

  5. How Much do We Need to Store? by Zordak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    E-mail is the biggest burden on the storage space, and so much of that is garbage (I'm not even talking about spam---most "legitimate" e-mail is garbage). I wonder if there would be appreciable negative repercussions to deleting most of it. It seems like as often as not, all you get from archived e-mails is well-documented and discoverable "smoking guns" when you get sued. What if we just stored less of it? Would it be that bad? How likely is it that you're going to need some random Word document from 1998? Not criticizing---I'd really like to know.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    1. Re:How Much do We Need to Store? by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the U.S., it's the law that a company must retain all electronic documents just in case they do ever have to go to court, for whatever reason. IMO, this is one of those very poorly thought out laws as 1) how do you punish a company for contempt when they can't hand over their e-mails because of 2) almost nobody currently archives all of their e-mails. Also, how do you prove that you've not deleted any? Plus, how does anybody ever sort through them all during discovery? I pity that law clerk.

  6. duh...users store their files in their email! by Maskirovka · · Score: 4, Informative

    article summary:

    Users in a lot of places use their email as a document management system. This is somewhat effective on an individual basis, but in large organizations shared documents get duplicated dozens or even hundreds of times as each user has their own copy. In the next few years products like Sharepoint will alleviate some of that, though storage is cheap enough that it may not be worth the cost to both reeducate users and build the infrastructure for it. A SAN can hold real a lot of word documents and PDFs after all...

    1. Re:duh...users store their files in their email! by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better article summary:

      Storage vendors want to sell expensive solutions to gullible execs, pay analysts to produce credible-sounding FUD scenarios.

      "monthly e-mail traffic at more than 30 million messages, vs. 17 million just one year ago."

      Like, wow. In the meantime 500GB disks cost the same or less than 250GB disks did a year ago.

      "The university settled on an IBM storage infrastructure that will afford the institution 350TB of capacity"

      350TB? 350 disks? Half that in a year and a quarter in 2? That's not really a huge amount of storage. Anymore. It's an amount of storage I could go order from my friendly online computer store and get delivered tomorrow.

      The fact is, corporate storage isnt driving the market anymore, the consumer market is. Most people I know have more storage in their home PC than the average server requires. Companies want to save video? Consumers want their PVR's to save the cable-tv stream.

    2. Re:duh...users store their files in their email! by leenks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like 1000 or 2000 disks, not 350. 1TB drives haven't really hit the enterprise yet. The biggest SAS drives in use are still 300GB.

  7. 2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All these archives are yours except Europa. ATTEMPT NO WRITINGS THERE.

    1. Re:2010 by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my God, it's full of pr0n.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  8. Use standard units people understand. by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Things like Libraries of Congress, Libraries of Alexandria, Spams per Square Inch. You know, the units that people have become familiar with. Besides which, are they power-two gigagytes or SI gigabytes? Also, how much bandwidth is needed to shift all that data? In the standard Imperial units of Clay Tablets per German Juggernaut per unit of French motorway, naturally.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  9. Surprising . . . by cashman73 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That 90% of that 27,000 petabyte figure isn't for archiving p0rn,... Although I guess, from the corporate IT perspective, they're not worried about backing up p0rn, since most people probably don't do that at work.

    But it is mostly email they're talking about here, and I bet a HUGE part of this archiving is:

    1. spam
    2. Email forwards that have been sent 1,000 times that still have all the original message headers attached
    3. Non-business-related multimedia emails sent by administrative assistants using the company's email and time to send and receive cutesy messages from/to their family & friends
    4. Business-related powerpoint and multimedia emails by non-techie PHBs that don't know how to transfer such files via FTP, and who are too damn lazy to use a thumbdrive

    Yep! Solve problems 1-3, and you'd vastly decrease the amount of email that you have to archive! I won't complain about #4, since I actually value my job, but it would be nice if more PHBs knew more about tech,...

    1. Re:Surprising . . . by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About 4. I do not understand management where I am.

      I make several excel files every week for reporting. They are located on a shared drive. Only extra data is added every monday, yet instead of puting a link to the files, or the directory, management wants me to send them by email every week to several people.

      Utterly stupid, if you ask me.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. For Fucks sake by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just delete the crap.

    --
    Deleted
  11. how much is surveillance data? by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Interesting
    E-mail growth accounts for much of that figure

    And a great deal of video archive from CCTV as well I expect.
    The question that arises is how would you index all this?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  12. This is starting to be Manditory by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only 27,000 petabytes? n00b!

    My pr0n collection takes at least 3 Internets* to store, archived.


    *(sorry, forgot the conversion rate for Libraries of Congress)

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  13. Moving away from Big Iron? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Funny
    FTFA:

    Mounting interest in these approaches highlights a pronounced shift away from "big-iron storage" - traditional storage arrays typically composed of custom application-specific integrated circuits, RAID controllers, and fixed-disk and cache-scalability ceilings. Now TFA goes on to say customers are turning towards Network Appliance as a company that uses COTS parts and software. They use an intel CPU and FC/GigE adapters from other vendors, but I wouldn't call them 100% COTS. It's not like it's a generic PC built from FRYS with JBOD on the back.

    NetApp is a great company and makes a great product aimed for a specific market segment: Fileservices (NFS/CIFS). I don't see many customers tossing out the EMC DMX, HDS Tagmastore or IBM Shark for a FC enabled netapp array. I also don't see a lot of FICON shops asking netapp to support FICON.

    Now the phase storage mgmt is entering is the 'good enough' phase. Does my organization need the current generation of "high end" arrays? Maybe not. The current generation of midrange with its better or cheaper $/GB and increasingly parallel featureset to the highend arrays, is starting to looking more attractive to many customers.
    1. Re:Moving away from Big Iron? by phoebusQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FTFA, RAID, TFA, COTS, CPU, FC, GigE, FRYS, JBOD, CFS, CIFS, EMC, DMX, HDS, IBM, FC, FICON... 17+ acronyms in one post...that's pretty impressive. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? :)

    2. Re:Moving away from Big Iron? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      FRYS isn't an acronym... :)

      and yes I do.

    3. Re:Moving away from Big Iron? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're talking storage (sorry DASD) here... It's all about...

      Hooking up a pair of EMC DMX's (or IBM ESSes, or HDS USPs) over a pair of OC48s for SRDF/PPRC/USR unless you are a zOS shop, then you could run XRC. Since this is a BC/DR plan, we'll run it over FCIP protected by IPSec over a DWDM leased line, which must be protected by a UPSR/BLSR, otherwise in the event of a link failure, the R1s will split from the R2s.

      Then you're SOL.

  14. Re:Wow, welfare for programmers... by phoebusQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do you figure that storage needs driving the increase in disk capacities and creating jobs is "a huge drain on the economy"?

    And what do data-archiving rules have to do with welfare for programmers? Maybe for disk manufacturing firms or data admins, but programmers?

  15. will someone think of the kids! by metamorfoza · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does it bother you that much that these journalists want to make it easier for the general public to understand how big data storage they are talking about?

    I agree. However, I would go even further and instead of using geekish bytes and bits we should use something like 400 billions of mp3s. You know, so that myspace user out there can understand TFA. They clearly have interest in this sort of news.

  16. Redundant Data by tm8992 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how much of this data is really redundant--copies of other data. How many emails can really be unique? How many employees download the same video a hundred times on the company's server? As network speeds increase, it will be less necessary for multiple users to store the same thing (think streaming those videos), so could this really be an exaggeration of future storage requirements? Could a better system be designed to minimize redundancy?

  17. So that's about 20 billion gigabytes of data... by LordHuggington · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that will be lost or stolen as company employees fail to properly encrypt back-ups, leave laptops in their car while running in for a latte or some such? Seriously, though, the article says storage is corporations' number 2 concern. What's number one from this survey? Is it security?

  18. a helpful reference page for large numbers by HappyEngineer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is my helpful reference page for big numbers. I love big numbers. I'm actually working on a site right now which will help people to visualize big numbers. I can't give out the url yet because it'll be another month or two before it's ready to be seen. But, it'll have many fun options like Cow Stacking and Hamster Canyon.

    Cow stacking is where you select cow as the animal and from earth to moon as the place and you'll see a graphic of cows being stacked to the moon and the number of cows which would be required to complete that stack.

    Hamster Canyon will be where you select a hamster and the Grand Canyon and you'll see a picture of the Grand Canyon filled with hamsters and a number that indicates the total number of hamsters required to fill the canyon.

    1. Re:a helpful reference page for large numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hamster Canyon will be where you select a hamster and the Grand Canyon and you'll see a picture of the Grand Canyon filled with hamsters and a number that indicates the total number of hamsters required to fill the canyon. That's much better than Libraries of Congress. Most people haven't even seen the Library of Congress, but who hasn't seen huge piles of hamsters?
  19. Re:nibbles! by broggyr · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought half of a byte was called a nybble...

    --
    Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
  20. The solution is data compression by careysb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just ZIP up the data to a smaller zip file. Then zip the zip file to and even smaller zip file. Repeat until all your data is compressed into a couple of megs. :-)

  21. Re: I need a SB of storage by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, a SaganByte of storage. It would have to store Billions of billions of bytes.

  22. Even Worse ... by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... most of this will be documents in formats older than Office 2003.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.