Yottabyte hard drive

[xeraion]

I was wondering when the pc industry will be getting yottabyte hard drive?

[spartin503]

Well since it took us 27 years to go from the first GB HDD in 1980 to the first TB HDD in 2007, I would say that it will be about 2030 when we get petabyte HDD and then to get to a yottabyte HDD we are look at about the year 2200.

[xeraion]

that is very unfortunate

[h264]

Moore's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

It's actually a self fulfilling prophecy about microprocessors, but it's easily applied to everything else in computing over the past 20 years. The growth rate is exponential, not linear. Storage demand is enormous, and we may exceed even our greatest expectations if we continue to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us.

Give it another 20 years. 20 years ago, a megabyte was a lot. There's a thousand-thousand (plus those twenty fours) megabytes in a terabyte. There's a thousand thousand terabytes in a single Exabyte, and a Yottabyte is only another thousand-thousand twenty four up from there (Zettabyte being after Exabyte)

[Cal920c]

Well since it took us 27 years to go from the first GB HDD in 1980 to the first TB HDD in 2007' date=' I would say that it will be about 2030 when we get petabyte HDD and then to get to a yottabyte HDD we are look at about the year 2200.[/quote']

I would honestly not be surprised if we see petabyte in our lifetime with the rate that the industry is growing.

[Remnants]

In 2003 I had a 40GB HDD, thought it was amazing. 2013, I have several 256GB SSD's in my desktop. My server has 24TB of space, which is almost full, and I'm thinking... why?

[MartyniP]

What about organic storage which has been suggested? If they can 'cram' 700TB of data into a gram of DNA, surely we could be using that in the future, instead of the traditional HDD or SSD technology.

[ErwinS]

Martyn is right. Forget SSD's, DNA is the future.

[Maverik5124]

Well but for "reading" and "writing" dna you need a whole lab right now

[MartyniP]

Well but for "reading" and "writing" dna you need a whole lab right now

You needed similar with vacuum tubes

[Si3Rra_7]

that is very unfortunate

xD

[Si3Rra_7]

In 2003 I had a 40GB HDD, thought it was amazing. 2013, I have several 256GB SSD's in my desktop. My server has 24TB of space, which is almost full, and I'm thinking... why?

what do you have in that server to fill up 24tb ? the entire internet worth of porn :/

[pzt]

Moore's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

It's actually a self fulfilling prophecy about microprocessors, but it's easily applied to everything else in computing over the past 20 years. The growth rate is exponential, not linear. Storage demand is enormous, and we may exceed even our greatest expectations if we continue to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us.

Give it another 20 years. 20 years ago, a megabyte was a lot. There's a thousand-thousand (plus those twenty fours) megabytes in a terabyte. There's a thousand thousand terabytes in a single Exabyte, and a Yottabyte is only another thousand-thousand twenty four up from there (Zettabyte being after Exabyte)

I Agree with you here! since the exponential growth of moores law i wouldn't be surprised if it happens within the next decade or two!

beside who really needs a yottabyte, let alone a petabyte/ let alone more than like 5 terabytes hahah! (except for research!)

[YoshiHDify]

Maybe the industry can change to having better compression and file sizes, then we'd be able to store more on less.

[NannerBeans]

Moore's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

It's actually a self fulfilling prophecy about microprocessors, but it's easily applied to everything else in computing over the past 20 years. The growth rate is exponential, not linear. Storage demand is enormous, and we may exceed even our greatest expectations if we continue to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us.

Give it another 20 years. 20 years ago, a megabyte was a lot. There's a thousand-thousand (plus those twenty fours) megabytes in a terabyte. There's a thousand thousand terabytes in a single Exabyte, and a Yottabyte is only another thousand-thousand twenty four up from there (Zettabyte being after Exabyte)

Some say moore's law wont be true for much longer.

[h264]

Moore's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

It's actually a self fulfilling prophecy about microprocessors, but it's easily applied to everything else in computing over the past 20 years. The growth rate is exponential, not linear. Storage demand is enormous, and we may exceed even our greatest expectations if we continue to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us.

Give it another 20 years. 20 years ago, a megabyte was a lot. There's a thousand-thousand (plus those twenty fours) megabytes in a terabyte. There's a thousand thousand terabytes in a single Exabyte, and a Yottabyte is only another thousand-thousand twenty four up from there (Zettabyte being after Exabyte)

Yeah, they said that 10 years ago too. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, so you must believe!

[Sardis]

Well if we had high resolution spherical display for like a holodeck type experience then maybe we'll need a Yottabyte of storage.

Just for the heck of it, let's work it out :)

Using "8K" 4320p (7680 × 4320) as a basis, if you made the view distance minimum as close as 60 cm (~2 feet) which is a 40 degree horizontal FOV and it would give a PPI of just over 446 which is around the limit of the human eye for that distance:

http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-...nough-feature/

At ~2 feet the 40 degree FOV for that ppi the diagonal dimension would be 19.75". The width would be ~17.2" and height would be 9.75" which would give a 23.311^o vertical FOV. 24 bit colour depth and 240hz refresh rate for a realistic experience also would help. That all would would equate to:

Per second file size:

7680 x 4320 = 33,177,600 bytes = 31.64MB

33,177,600 bytes x 24 bits = 796,262,400 bytes = 759.375MB

796,262,400 bytes x complete 360^o FOV ( ( (4 x Pi x radius²(23.622in (60cm) ) ) / ~166.57 inch² (area of 19.75" screen) )

= 796,262,400 bytes x 42.1 (360^o FOV) = 33,522,647,040 bytes = 31.22 GB

33,522,647,040 bytes x 240hz = 8,045,435,289,600 bytes = 7.3 Terabytes

7.3 Terabytes for one second of 446ppi, 2 foot radius, 360^o uncommpressed video!!!

Compressing with H.265 at a ratio of about 0.005:1 would equal = 40227176448 bytes = 37.46 GB per second. Hmm that's still a lot! :eek:

Let's cut that down to 120hz and 12 bit colour = 9.366GB/s.

Current PCI-E 3.0 is 1GB/s per lane so 16GB/s on a 16x which would give enough physical bandwidth. Current 2400mhz quad channel ram can process just over 50GB/s which could deal with the compressed 240hz and 24bit version. Thunderbolt now supports 20Gbit/s so 5 current Thunderbolt cables could handle it or 15 cables for the full compressed.

A 1 hour uncompressed movie would be 25.66PB so a 24 episode 40 minute season of TV would be 16 hours = 410PB for 1 Season. Ten seasons of ridiculous spherical video would come in at 4 Exabytes sooo not anywhere close to a Yottabyte but if Youtube hosted 4 million-ish hours of it then yay 1 Yottabyte!

So there's my late night, boredom inspired contribution to the Yottabyte and to finish off here's a quote from Wikipedia:

"If 64 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to public as of early 2013) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 2500000 cubic meters, or the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza."

Of course I'd rather an amazing version of the Oculus... time to go do something worthwhile with my time! :D

[mafal54]

Well, [url=http://cfn.physik.uni-saarland.de/Bilder/Rasterkraft4.gif]http://cfn.physik.uni-saarland.de/Bilder/Rasterkraft4.gif[/url=http://cfn.physik.uni-saarland.de/Bilder/Rasterkraft4.gif]

Here you see the Picture of a magnetized HDD, as you can see there is no space to get more data on it.

So if you ask me we will never get that amount of data on a single HDD.

BUT and this is a BIG BUT I'am also sure there will be other ways to store data.

At the moment we use magnetism but I just visited a University where they research some other ways like changing something with an electron (The Computer works with 1 and 0 wich basicly means we need to change small things and let the Computer read the change so it would see 0=normal electron 1=changed electron) and with using this technoligy it would be possible to store that amount of data.

[dlf]

Wonder how much space we'd lose of that trillion terabytes.