Forum Archive Home -> Latest Video News -> New storage capacity
New storage capacity | ||||||
| GideonK posted 2009 Apr 27 15:02 | ||||||
| May never have to delete anything, ever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8021012.stm | ||||||
| Number Six posted 2009 Apr 27 15:14 | ||||||
| I read about this a few years ago - glad to see it has come to this point. I do think that there will be consumer interest, just wondering what the initial price point will be. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Apr 27 15:23 | ||||||
| I could use a 25 pack today. | ||||||
| Dv8ted2 posted 2009 Apr 27 15:26 | ||||||
Several arms and legs, I am afraid... | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 Apr 27 15:35 | ||||||
It will probably go through an adoption phase similar to the "Professional Disc" (BE Blu-Ray in a cartridge) intended for pro archive market. They get priced high until the business market starts to saturate, then consumer versions are offered with 10x price decline.
 | ||||||
| Supreme2k posted 2009 Apr 27 16:36 | ||||||
| I got a 100 spindle of Ridata 800GB single layer discs from newegg for $37.99. Can't wait until a player comes out! | ||||||
| VegasBud posted 2009 Apr 27 16:43 | ||||||
| It's kind of hard to stay enthused about holographic storage. As Number Six pointed out, they've been talking about this for years, and as this article confirms, "the technology is still in the laboratory stage"...exactly where it always has been.
I used to have high hopes for InPhase's "Tapestry" line of drives, but after years of postponed shipping dates, it's still not shipping. The last I heard it's now pushed back until the fourth quarter of this year. Frankly, I'll believe it when I see it ship, and not until then. As for the cost, the Tapestry 300 GB drive was originally $18,000, with the disks priced at $180. With inflation, it might currently be more like $20,000 for the drive and $200+ for disks...if you could get one...but you can't...so it's all speculation. | ||||||
| Bjs posted 2009 Apr 27 20:33 | ||||||
| There goes the weekend :lol: | ||||||
| greymalkin posted 2009 Apr 27 20:38 | ||||||
| yep...this crops up every few years...
..the story, that is..not anything tangible. | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Apr 27 21:06 | ||||||
| Optical drives are out, solid-state is in. | ||||||
| PuzZLeR posted 2009 Apr 27 23:01 | ||||||
I'm in the same sentiment as a few posts here. They've been talking about these mega, many-GB, storage discs for well over 5 years now. Even when they first mentioned something called a "blu-ray disc" years ago - something that would store "something like 25GB or 50GB" - is still major chump-change today to purchase. This is still after many (and I emphasize "many") years later. So I can only imagine how much longer these items will take to be "affordable"... I, like edDV, could use a couple of dozen myself. But, after all this yap and teasing about it, it's getting a tad annoying. Bring it already.
In the meantime we'll still be storing our DV source and HD content rather painfully for some time yet... DvD-R seems so tiny now... | ||||||
| Browncoat posted 2009 Apr 28 01:13 | ||||||
| I agree with Lordsmurf, solid state seems to be the go. 64GB sd cards a bit bigger than your fingernail..amazing, and no moving parts! I'd be interested in projected lifespans of solid state storage media though. | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Apr 28 02:35 | ||||||
| Solid-state is not as damaged by humidity, temperature or scratches. | ||||||
| raffie posted 2009 Apr 28 06:59 | ||||||
| I read somewhere cost would initially be 0.10$ per gigabytes, so 50$ per disk, wich is reasonable enough. It is in fact, about the same price per gig as DVD-R's only you need only 1 disc instead of 120 xD | ||||||
| RLT69 posted 2009 Apr 28 12:26 | ||||||
They are not meant for permanent storage. They are good for temporary stuff but long term archiving, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Disadvantages | ||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 Apr 28 13:13 | ||||||
| A write-once SSD wouldn't degrade in theory. | ||||||
| dadrab posted 2009 Apr 28 14:10 | ||||||
You hit the nail on the head...i.e. made a point and killed it in two lines Does anyone really think a company will go to the trouble to R&D and market a consumer disc to sell one or two to a household for a mere $50 a copy? Granted, some us us might need 25 or 30, but still, no one's going to make a living like that. The numbers just aren't there at such a low price point. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2009 Apr 30 12:47 | ||||||
Are you sure you really would want to have it that way? :shock: (not to delete anything, ever) | ||||||
| PuzZLeR posted 2009 Apr 30 19:20 | ||||||
| ||||||
| dadrab posted 2009 May 01 07:53 | ||||||
Me personally? Yeah, probably... 8) :lol: | ||||||
| PuzZLeR posted 2009 May 02 12:13 | ||||||
| Yeah... me too... :wink: | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2009 May 04 11:30 | ||||||
| It is nice that the optical storage capacity might be capable of hitting terabyte soon, but that's not all that counts.
The speed at which data is written to such media is IMHO more important than the capacity. I see no use for those 500GB or 1TB discs if we would have to wait probably several hours until such drive completes writing up back up of a harddisk... I'd just buy another harddisk instead and have it done way much faster. Future is in SSD. These new optical storage formats are simply too late. The only feature that might introduce them to our daily use is if they could read and write with same speeds as at least SATA1. It reminds me of DVD-RAM - large space revolutionary format (in its time) that never really "caught on" not only due to its initially high drives and media prices, but also because of its too slow writing speeds. | ||||||
| SatStorm posted 2009 May 04 12:45 | ||||||
| It is nice to see those discs finally take form.
I could use them. Solid Memory is nice too, but I love to see alternatives. Cheap ones, better. | ||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 04 13:13 | ||||||
| Optical storage must have a long term data reliability advantage to be successful. All other factors favor a hard drive. | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2009 May 04 13:16 | ||||||
I agree, but don't misunderstand me :) Would you be using i.e. DVD-Rs today as your (probably) main writable format if they were still going at 1x or 2x burn speed? I doubt it... simply the required burning time would not permit you to burn more than just few discs a day, not to mention that making a backup of mere 40GB HDD would take you more than 10 hrs... ;) and that's my point. DVD-R-writables became main format because they are somewhat fast, at least they are fast enough for average user (and also because they became so cheap - thanks to their ubiquity). It took ~10years for DVD-RAMs to reach laughable 6x write speed (rev. 1.2 IIRC) while WORM DVD-Rs sped up from 2x to 12x in 1/3 of that time. That's why IMHO it wasn't the price of DVD-RAMs (which would come down significantly if they would have "caught on") but their mediocre speed that added to their demise. DVD-RAM were superior to DVD-R/+R and had same capacity, but they lost because of their speed (again - their prices would have certainly dropped a lot if they would have become as popular as DVD-Rs). These 500GB discs better have some good writable speeds, otherwise they'll never find a market outside some specialized uses only (like it were with DVD-RAM).
I think current optical disc technologies warrant at least 20 year life span for WORM discs, right? That's already more than probable lifespan of modern harddisks (unles they are not used, treated as WORM) | ||||||
| VegasBud posted 2009 May 04 15:11 | ||||||
The InPhase Tapestry 300 GB has a read/write data rate of ~20 MB/s, or ~15x (as expressed relative to dvd's data rate). The data rate is pretty much limited by the current requirement for the spinning disk to come to a stop in order to read/write. Since InPhase has most of the patents for the technology, and nobody else is even pretending to be scheduling the release of a usable system, it's probably a pretty good indication of the first realistic holographic implementation. And yes, their initial market is for specialized data storage facilities.
The same logic that pigeonholes dvd media longevity as 10-20 years puts holographic longevity as 50-100 years. That would be very appealing to those with serious digital archiving tasks. | ||||||
| PuzZLeR posted 2009 May 04 22:30 | ||||||
| Is long-term reliability really that important? Sure, 5 years is important enough. But 20 years? 50 years? In that time span there should always be something "better" to migrate your archival content to.
I've already done this with 5.25" -> 3.5" -> Zip -> CD-R(W) -> DvD-R(W) -> External drives, and will do it with the next, and more efficient, thing. Five years was pretty much the maximum I ever needed for any antecedent unit. | ||||||
| SatStorm posted 2009 May 05 04:09 | ||||||
| Well, I imagine that those discs won't take more than an hour or two when they finally made it in the market DereX888! I mean, the success on optical media need to combine 3 elements: Storage space, Writing speed and Price!
After all, we won't buy those discs before they end up costing 5 euros and be able to burn them in 30 min! Regarding the importance of Long-term reliability: Well, actually yes, today in my mid 30s (35 actually) I see that it is important. Very important! I bet the older I became, the more it counts - for me at least! - You see, I burn to store something today and I may need it again in 10 - 15 years, after a digital disaster or something (it happens...). So, I wish to have a back up on something that I trust. I don't trust HDD and I don' t know how those memory based solutions hold. But I know that CDs I burn myself back in the late 90s, still work perfect. So, I trust the optical solutions because I have test them for more than 10 years and I know they work. Something similar happened with my early 80s VHS tapes - and thank God they still play OK! - | ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2009 May 10 13:26 | ||||||
That's what I was talking about. I'm not sure you mean 20 megabytes or megabits per second, but it doesn't matter at this point. Basically user won't be able to burn more than 1 full disc PER DAY :( Assuming write speed of 20 megabits per second: 20 megabits per second is ~2.5 MB (megabytes) per second. 500GB = 521,000 MB (megabytes) 512000 / 2.5 = 204800 (seconds to write the full disc) which is 204800 / 60 = 3413 minutes which is 3413 / 60 = 56.8 hours Assuming write speed of 20 megabytes per second: 512000 / 20 = 25600 (seconds to write the disc) which is 25600 / 60 = 426.6 minutes which is 426.6 / 60 = 7.1 hours Either way burning such disc is a painfully slow process and let's not forget my calculations shown above DON'T include verify time, which usually is longer than write time, as CDs and DVDs taught us. (assuming your information about their write speed is correct). I don't know about most of yous, but certainly I wouldn't buy such drive. 500GB on a disc is tempting, yes, but 7hrs to write a disc is a show stopper (56hrs obviously is a no go at any point). If the time to burn such disc would drop to say 2, maybe 3 hours I could see any future for those discs. But again, using second harddisk (or third/fourth/fifth/...) *is* way more feasible at this point. | ||||||
| VegasBud posted 2009 May 10 14:26 | ||||||
DereX888,
By the time they get to the 1.6 TB disk, they plan on seeing 120 MB/s data rate...but until they at least release the 300 GB disk system, I tend to take everything they say with a grain of salt. While the 300 GB may not be rocket fast, this page sure does make it sound good:
| ||||||
| DereX888 posted 2009 May 11 13:48 | ||||||
VegasBud, let's hope they really mean business and not just usual attempt to grab "news attention" so they can raise more funds for the chairman's bonus... |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.