Video of ceramic storage system prototype surfaces online — 10,000TB cartridges bombarded with laser rays could become mainstream by 2030, making slow hard drives and tapes obsolete::Ceramics-based storage medium consumes very little energy and lasts more than 5,000 years, creators say

    • Anti-Antidote@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look if you can trade a little over a hundred isolinear processing chips for a goddamn space cannon it’s gotta be worth it

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure that trope is 100% about being able to use the actors’ faces while they’re doing computer stuff. Same as why space suits always have lights inside the helmets, which would be an insanely bad idea IRL.

  • seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just wait until one of your techs drops a cassette of these glass and ceramic plates and suddenly your company is out 100,000TB of data.

    The whole “it can last 5000 years” thing is somewhat ridiculous considering the library mechanisms, carriers for the slides and basically everything else not glass and ceramic probably won’t last more than 20 or 30.

    • Brokkr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is possible to make glass and ceramics that are resistant to shattering from fair hard impacts. I don’t know if that can be employed here, but there are other ways to deal with the problem.

      Additionally, if 100,000 TB is something that people can carry by hand, then it is also possible to back up those drives relatively easily (relative to that technology).

      Lastly, current silicon fabs have boxes of wafers that at the final stages can exceed $1M in the retail value. They have robots that handle those. If the 100,000 TB is worth something close to that, then a human will not be carrying it.

      • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not playing Lemmy correctly. The highest rated post must always be a half-hearted pessimistic lazy criticism of whatever new technology is being described.

      • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lastly, current silicon fabs have boxes of wafers that at the final stages can exceed $1M in the retail value. They have robots that handle those. If the 100,000 TB is worth something close to that, then a human will not be carrying it.

        Pharma has entered the chat…they just have warehouse people riding forklifts with pallets worth much more than $1M.

        • Brokkr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sure pharmacy has some crazy value density, but it’s hards to put accurate values on their products because of insurance.

          The boxes of wafers I was talking about is roughly 1.5 ft cubed. The fabs will have hundreds of these boxes moving around by robots at any one time.

          • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not really, i work in the industry (in europe), and prices we use in the production facilities are actual selling value, not the ridicolous inflated prices you see on the invoice in the US.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or just put the cartridge in a shockproof box. One that can last as long as the medium. It can’t be that hard to make a really good box.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s… literally always a concern. Name a digital storage medium impervious to impact damage. You can’t.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Isn’t that a concern with other tech too? If storage is cheaper, it would enable for more redundant copies

      A lot of places just don’t have backups. I’m thinking of hospitals getting hit with ransomware attacks, some are fine and just pull from backups and others shell out lots of money.

      I’d love to see cheaper enterprise storage since it’ll be easier to justify more backups. That single IT guy managing a hospital network could use a break…

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having backups at multiple sites is industry standard. Nobody is keeping 100,000TB of data in a single location.

      As for your second point, I don’t see the relevance. You can store the glass wherever you want, the other mechanisms aren’t relevant for keeping the stored data.

      • aeronmelon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like how if you put a shattered CD in an apparatus, you can still use a laser reader to recover any data on the undamaged sections.

        Though, because data is recorded in a circular pattern at high speeds, you won’t get much. Or what you get will have lots of corruption. I wonder what pattern of storage these plates use? If it’s similar to SSDs, then large files can be nested in a very small area of space - increasing the chances of recovery.

  • sndrtj@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    To all the naysayers: if the claims hold up this will be super useful for some industries. Example, I worked at a human genomics lab for diagnostics. By law we were supposed to retain raw data for a whopping 120 years. With a couple terabyte per individual for a WGS, the storage and backup costs were very much non-trivial.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a data analyst at mid-large corporation in America: please stop emailing me that the servers are nearly full. I need to store all of this to stay within regulations and you only give me one place to put my data outputs :(

      • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a regular computer user: please stop telling me my OneDrive is full, I don’t even use it, I have no idea how it filled up

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah genomics research has this white elephant problem where the data retention for open science/publication is incredibly expensive for the ones doing the research.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think consumer use is even on Cerabyte’s roadmap. They are proposing rack-mounted units for datacenters, and the roadmap includes upgrading from lasers to electron microscopes for higher density in the future. The media are super dense but the equipment to read and write that media is large and complex.

    There was some discussion on this a few months back in this thread, as well: https://lemmy.world/post/4695105

    As I noted in that other thread, they were set to present at the Storage Developer Conference in October. Looks like the video of their presentation is available now. I have not yet watched it. https://storagedeveloper.org/events/agenda/session/527

    Edit: Looking through their presentation PDF, they refer to access times from 10 seconds to 90 seconds. That’s whole seconds, no milli, micro, or nano. More a substitute for archival tapes than hard drives or SSDs. They don’t seem to address any use case besides cold storage. I’m not saying that to dismiss or criticize the tech, just to point out that the linked article seems to be off target in its analysis, particularly in the headline.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Data hoarders will love it if it’s cheaper than current storage methods. How much would you need to pay for 10PB right now?

    • Bread@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have been waiting for the results of project silica for awhile. The fact there are potential alternatives is very exciting to hear. The hoard is not getting any smaller.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      This will never be for the average consumer. By their marketing alone I can tell you they’re pretty much exclusively targeting large data centers with this tech.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        How big were drives 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? Floppy disks were big for their time. They held 3.5" floppies held a whopping 1.44MB in 1986. Average new phones have capacity orders of a magnitude bigger than that.

        You might need to take a step back and look at history before making such absolute claims.

        • Tattorack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does this have to do with what I just said?

          The problem isn’t how much data these can hold, but that they’re not rewritable. THAT is what makes them only useful to data centres.

          You can only write to them once. But they’re not like hard disks or flash memory where you can delete the data and write again.

          • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            people also have necessities like these. family photos and videos, music and movies ripped from their physical media and ebooks can all be stored in a read only storage device.

            I know my family has old photos that they’ve been trying to digitalize because of the paper slowly degrading, for example. an ordinary hard drive can fail any time. this ceramic thing could be used instead, as it appears to be more durable and there’s no need rewrite anything.

            • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly.

              So what if they’re write once? If the capacity is high enough vs cost, then I just continue filling it up with incremental Backups. Knowing it’s stable and massive means I just buy a new storage medium when it’s full… In ten years.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wonder how many people said that about computers back in the day when they were occupying a whole room.

        • Tattorack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a scale issue. But a use issue.

          I don’t see many people burning disks anymore.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Much to my frustration. Backing up a self-hosted NAS to 3-2-1 standards is difficult and/or expensive. I wish LTO drives weren’t out of reach.

  • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Something I sometimes think about is how much of humanity’s history is just like, gone. Completely forgotten to time. Great works of art that’ll never be seen. Amazing compositions that’ll never again be heard. An uncalculable number of lifetimes reduced to nothing more than food for the dirt.

    The proposition that we could store vast amounts of our current experience on archival slabs and preserve it all far into our distant future is incredibly exciting to me. It wouldn’t only allow us to indefinitely preserve all of these incredible works of art our modern world has enabled. But would also allow us to more effectively learn from our collective societal mistakes. It would hopefully be more difficult to ignore our past foibles when we keep such detailed receipts… Hopefully.

    If not at least they’ll have SpongeBob in 7023 to distract from the cyber-nazis.

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah but in about 10 years it will be replaced by something even better and they’ll stop making the readers for it.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The proposition that we could store vast amounts of our current experience on archival slabs and preserve it all far into our distant future is incredibly exciting to me.

      We’re currently one Carrington Event away from losing a huge amount of the history of the last 20 years. Not to mention all of the things from previous years that were archived from originals that no longer exist.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now if they could only make one that only costs a couple thousand dollars and fits in a full height 5.25" drive bay.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would you want that? This is, permanent storage. You write to it and that’s it, it’ll hold the data, and only that data, forever.

      This method of data storage will not be useful to the average consumer, and this company is hoping to replace hard drives in data centers for cold storage.

          • onlinepersona@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Photos, recordings, bank statements, pay slips, etc. all don’t change and would probably want to be kept for years. The average person probably has them all on some cloud service or on multiple devices (laptops, phones, PCs). Having just one drive to store all of that on that you can be sure doesn’t degrade until well past your natural life isn’t that farfetched.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would be a similar price and size as a typical tape drive. It would be used for backups and the ability to rewrite data would not be needed as long as the cartridges can have multiple partial writes.

          • Terrasque@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And what do you think CD writers are? I’m not talking about rewriteable CDs here. Normal burn once CDs. You could write some files, then decide to replace a file and add more.

            Look up cd sessions. Until you finalized it, and as long as there was still free space, you could add, modify and delete data on it.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Business have plenty of reason to use this. Backing up several terabytes in a proper 3-2-1 setup is expensive.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have a pet peeve when people are dismissive about things that are “only” for commercial use. Commercial is a huge market, especially when it comes to IT things. Almost every company on Earth can benefit from better backup solutions. You may not see them personally, but they help run the things that you use all the time.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And commercial stuff makes it’s way down to consumers all the time.

            As an enterprise geek, I watch what we do trickle down to SMB every year… And then to consumers. Many consumers have similar tech capabilities as many SMB’s. Just look around here, how many of us run segmented networks, with traffic filtering, numerous test devices and virtualization?

    • Bread@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You clearly have never met a data hoarder before then. Some people just store things for the heck of it and if it happens to be relevant years down the line, they have you covered.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know it was said before in previous decades as storage evolved, but: How the fuck, do you eve fill these up?

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At 10,000tb, it could have a latency of 5 minutes and it’d probably still be useful for long term storage.

      Edit: it’s also useful to note that it sounds like these are write-once, read many. That means for consumers, they might eventually replace Blurays, but they probably won’t be replacing your hard drive.

      • Haquer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that would be the only useful use case. However I think with even a few seconds of latency I could deal with that for things like video playback since it would quite literally up my storage by a few orders of magnitude.

        • r_13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it wasn’t so long ago that hard drive storage was more expensive than spindles of CD-Rs and that was around the time that internet and torrenting were taking off. People used to burn CDs full of movies to share and make room to download more. In that use case a unit of 700 MB on write once read many storage was useful if cheap.

      • Brokkr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depending on price, consumers may be able to afford multiples. They could in theory use them until no space remains. This would be be fine for any data storage that people want, but obvious wouldn’t be good as your c drive.

        • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          10k TB would be enough to backup all my data hundreds of times over. If I made a cold copy every 3 months of everything, even accounting for increasing data over time, I’d probably die before making it through a single one.

        • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, if they can truly be manufactured on the cheap, it could be a good backup system for anyone with a digital collection of photos / movies / etc. My photo collection doesn’t change much but takes up a decent amount of space. If I could buy one of these a year, dump a bunch of photos, then bury it in the yard (or whatever) for the event of a drive failure. I’d be cool with that - something sturdy enough to take some abuse as a backup drive with a long memory and low failure rate.