Slashdot Mirror
A Yottabyte of Storage Per Year by 2013
Lucas123 writes "David Roberson, general manager of Hewlett-Packard's StorageWorks division, predicts that by 2013 the storage industry will be shipping a yottabyte (a billion gigabytes) of storage capacity annually. Roberson made the comment in conjunction with HP introducing a new rack system that clusters together four blade servers and three storage arrays with 820TB of capacity. Many vendors are moving toward this kind of platform, including IBM, with its recent acquisition of Israeli startup XIV, according to Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Mark Peters."
Impressed, you will be.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
When I can say "I have a lotta yottabytes"
Under the new regime, wouldn't that be a "Yobibyte" or something similarly idiotic?
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
A yotta byte is 10^24 which is a trillion terra bytes
or 10^12 * 10^12
I thought geeks hung out here......
umm.. wouldn't that be one zettabyte? If I am not off then one yottabyte would be a billion terabyte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta
Yow! That's a lotta bytes!!!!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Well, here is one compelling reason to stop developing ever larger and larger storage - silly names.
And at the other end of the spectrum you have the nybble.
How much exactly does that mean?
...
- 10^9 * 10^9 bytes
- 2^30 * 2^30 bytes
- 10^9 * 2^30 bytes
- 10^12 * 2^30 bytes (non-american billions)
-
You never know, these days
I was getting concerned, it took over 10 minutes for someone to reference porn.
This new unit of data confuses me. I only think of data sizes in terms of Library of Congresses (LOCs), mass in terms of stones, and lengths in terms of horse hands. Now get off my lawn!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I prefer the nebulous term "lottabyte."
Lottabyte: An unspecific term meaning the amount of storage you think you need but know you can't afford.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This means I have to find a whole lot more porn if I want to keep up...
What, didn't you know Yottabyte was a Great Old One? First cousin of Nyarlothep, half brother of Shub Niggurath. Described as a multidimensional vortex of spinning disks emitting a terrible screeching, Yottabyte records the souls of the damned.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
At this rate, we'll need to start defining new prefixes before 2020.
Anyway, I emailed them this link to the terms in question, and post it here, for your edification. I have a post-it note on my bookcase with these terms - I think that as time goes on, knowing EXACTLY what each one is will be of some use. Until the oil runs out and we are shivering in the cold, anyway...
Here's their names, abreviations and their power of ten, so you know how big/small it is.
yocto- y 10^-24
zepto- z 10^-21
atto- a 10^-18
femto- f 10^-15
pico- p 10^-12
nano- n 10^-9
micro- m 10^-6
milli- m 10^-3
centi- c 10^-2
deci- d 10^-1
(none) -- --
deka- D 10^1
hecto- H 10^2
kilo- K 10^3
mega- M 10^6
giga- G 10^9
tera- T 10^12
peta- P 10^15
exa- E 10^18
zetta- Z 10^21
yotta- Y 10^24
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Considering the fact that I'm just a regular user who doesn't run a server or data centre or anything particular storage intensive (relatively speaking) and I bought a 1TB (1000GB) last year, I'm wondering whether this claim is as "WOW!" as it appears to be on the surface. Surely there's at least 1 million users (1 million x 1 thousand = 1 billion GB, or 1 yottabyte) who've bought a 1TB hard drive? Or even 10 million who've bought 100GB hard drives. And this is just home users mind you. There must be thousands, if not millions, of companies around the world with servers and data centres with plenty of gigabytes of storage being purchased every year.
Data's easy to generate. It's useful data that's difficult.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If I recall: byte, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, terabyte, petabyte, exabyte.
Unless we're talking about the British "billion"?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Server drives with high density need to be faster (seek and transfer times) to support more multiple users accessing different sequences of the disk's storage addresses in rapid interleaved succession.
But personal drives don't need as high speeds for one person's use, especially when the high capacity is for large media content objects that are stored unfragmented. We don't need to spend the money on transfer speeds so much faster than our playback speeds that it's never used. Large builtin caches are useful for real random-access data in small chunks, like programs or numerical datasets, not media.
Blu-Ray's max transfer speed is 54Mbps, though that's for recording - 48Mbps is max playback. 3x for buffering during FWD/REV scanning playback would be 144Mbps, 2.25MBps. Big drives currently recommended for personal use, like Seagate's 1TB Barracuda ES.2, get at least 53MBps transfer, over 23x as fast as the fastest it will ever really be asked to deliver. If it weren't so unnecessarily fast, maybe it would cost less, and an array of them for the same hundreds of dollars would hold more content.
With 50GB Blu-Ray HD titles to store, getting more sets of 20 titles in each HD in a RAID is a lot more important than getting them faster than they can be played.
--
make install -not war
So If a billion people owned 100 Yotta bytes that's 10^9*10^9*10^9*100*9 = 8E30 bits
there's something like 10^49 atoms on earth, and we'll only be able to access the crust of which only 5% is iron, and 80% of the earth is covered with water. so if we assume as a wild as guess that perhaps a part in a trillion of the earth can be made into disk drives then we have
1E37 atoms available for disk drives.
if each yottbyte drive weighs say 1/5 of a kilo and we assume it's built out mainly carbon and has say a mean weight of 20 amu per atom then this is like
6E21 atoms
therefore one could build no more than
1E15 drives all total.
Thinking about this number it also makes me wonder about how McDonalds got all those hamburgers.
Maybe I boofed the math or assumptions. Good thing this is slashdot and I know people will kindly correct me
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Oh come on, 640 yottabytes should be enough for anybody....
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Pre Fetch or Pre Fetch not... there is no Write.
Flash is the path to the bad sector. Flash leads to wear. wear leads to damage. damage leads to lost data.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
And sometimes much more quickly that you would care to know.
That still gives 1 YB by 2019..
if you ship 10x more hard drives this year than last year, you shipped 10x more storageYeah, that might be it. But to me it seems more likely that the article meant something other than the "yotta" preffix
how big is the difference between a Yottabyte (YB) and a Yottabibyte (YiB)Yobibyte, officially. It's 1 YiB = 1.208 YB, see the wikipedia link. They're still close enough in relative terms to use interchangeably when referring to orders of magnitude, but the absolute difference is a few everything-humanity-has-ever-stored units.
The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
Dear slashdot editors,
A yottabyte is not "a billion gigabytes." How about trying to confirm or understand the numbers your post, before you slap them on the front page?
The binary prefix giga = 10243
The binary prefix yotta = 10248
That means a yottabyte is 10245 gigabytes, or roughly one million billion gigabytes.
My bicyles