And they’re completely scratch-proof, right? I remember losing a CD-RW here and there (I’m old) because of scratches from everyday use. It’s fine when they only hold a few gigs, but 200 terabytes better be damn indestructible…
Put it in a minidisc-like plastic case to basically make it a cartridge and we’re in business.
Edit: oh, long term storage. My bad. Still, durability seems pretty essential.
The article is very light in detail but from what I’ve gathered they may only be in the proof of concept stage and looking for outside investments. This tech is years off which is basically a deathknell for anything targeting a today problem with a tomorrow solution. In data at least.
Longevity, Speed, Density… pick 2. This assumes rewritable media, of course… because we need feature parity. The current project appears to have at best 1 of the big 3.
Non magnetic media makes a lot of sense- but if we’re dealing in lasers we are limited by the spectrum of light. Sure you can probably focus a beam to burn into a layer 2, 15, 70 layers beneath another (and that’s impressive) … but explain how you plan to read that through the other layers. Explain how you will do it /quickly/. Explain how you won’t compromise the other layers receiving diffused light. I may end up being wrong but my gut tells me this is a research team just looking for venture capital.
This assumes rewritable media, of course… because we need feature parity.
I’d be fine without, if you can just append records to overwrite or delete previous files. For backup or long term storage RW doesn’t matter that much. Or at least, I’d much rather have a cheaper non rewritable disc with a capacity like this.
The expansion of that abbreviation feels like an idiocracy joke.
“We store the computer data on VBDs.” “What is a VBD?” “Very large disc^tm. It’s pretty advanced.” And then they just bring out an insanely large disc.
Smaller form factor than a lot of storage options. There is currently no 200TB option that has a small footprint AFAIK. At least nothing reasonable for you and me.
Incredibly high (claimed) stability and long shelf life.
Don't know cost yet but 200TB storage is expensive no matter how you do it currently so this could be competitive price-wise. TBD.
More options is generally good thing. There's a reason we aren't all using LTO.
The discs are said to be highly stable, with an expected lifespan of 50 to 100 years. That’s a huge leap over current data centre HDD based storage systems, which generally move data over to new devices every five to 10 years to avoid data-loss from ageing drives.
Many do, for long term archival at least, but tape still has only 30 years lifespan and has other limitations. As an example, the media wears relatively quickly when in use, so if there’s a need to access the data even relatively often optical media would make sense. That’s often not an issue in archival though.
Optical discs are not really meant for longterm storage on their own. Disc rot is a real thing.
Edit: I should have gone into a bit more detail. Yes, optical storage discs CAN be okay for longer term storage. But it depends on quite a few factors. The material itself has to be long lasting, the manufacturer has to have good quality control, and the end client should store it in a controlled environment. It’s it better or worse than alternatives. No idea without the actual data. It certainly has better density.
Another associated benefit would be the minimisation of data migration. The discs are said to be highly stable, with an expected lifespan of 50 to 100 years. That's a huge leap over current data centre HDD based storage systems, which generally move data over to new devices every five to 10 years to avoid data-loss from ageing drives.
No, not really. Generally as a product ages the quality control goes down since demand isn’t there. You can make archival grade CDs that will last a life time, it just costs too much money for anyone to want to pay for it. Plus business have tape which is plenty good for long term storage.
SSDs aren’t great for long term archival since the nand needs to periodically be refreshed. You can build a better SSD, but that compromises storage capacity. HDDs are better, but they have other issues from sitting around not being used. Disks like these are a pretty good backup method if produced correctly. If is the big key, 100 layers sounds like a lot of layers to manufacture correctly, and you won’t know your dat is gone until it’s unreadable.
But will it be able to replace tape for long term backup? LTO 9 is supposedly available, and up to 18TB not compressed. LTO-10 is 36, and supposedly LTO-14 is going to be 576 TB but that seems overly ambitious.
At these sizes, you could have one or two error correction layers within the disc to let you read the data through errors. I’d be surprised if that isn’t the case. Sacrificing 1-2% of the storage space for better reliability is an obvious trade-off.
That makes sense. Why improve the process if it costs more to do so and most people don’t need it to last that long? But at least archival-quality CDs are out there.
True. It also depends on manufacturer quality controls and end client storage environment. I just recall that being a big selling point for DVD and CDs only for some people to find unreadable garbage after a decade. Or at least not easily readable garbage.
That was my question about this. It can store a lot of data, great! But will the media last 10 years or more? For real long term storage it needs to last decades.
Another associated benefit would be the minimisation of data migration. The discs are said to be highly stable, with an expected lifespan of 50 to 100 years. That’s a huge leap over current data centre HDD based storage systems, which generally move data over to new devices every five to 10 years to avoid data-loss from ageing drives.
*Some optical discs. Others not so much, it’s not an inevitability… M-DISC, introduced in 2009, has a rating with proper storage of one THOUSAND years. They are even readable and writable by most regular DVD/Blueray drives!
Add comment