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
      8
      ·
      9 months 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
      8
      ·
      9 months 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.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months 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.

  • seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months 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
      52
      ·
      9 months 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 Han Wo to be carrying it.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months 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.

      • DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months 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.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        possible to make glass and ceramics that are resistant to shattering from fair hard impacts.

        As far as I know, there is 1 storage technology that has survived wars. Paper.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months 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…

      • aeronmelon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months 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.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

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

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months 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.

  • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months 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
      ·
      9 months 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
      ·
      9 months 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.

  • sndrtj@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 months 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.

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months 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.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months 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?

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The storage plates probably won’t cost much, but the capabilities it uses to write to those plates looks extremely expensive and won’t be fitting into your computer tower any time soon.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Any time soon” is the thing. Look at the history of hard disk drives. To store 3.75MB in 1957 on a hard disk, a single hard disk was the size of two refrigerators. By the 1980s they were 8 inches (~20cm) big stored 10 MB. Nowadays they are 3.5 inches (~9 cm) big and can store multiple TB.

        Technology has accelerated considerably. Even if it takes 20 years, it might still be quicker than the hard disk to home timeline.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, but there’s different problems at hand now. 60 years ago the entire driving force in computers consisted of making things smaller. A hard drive 50 years ago worked like a hard drive from 20 years ago. Just shrunk. Same for processors.

          Well now we’re running out of room to shrink. We had to change hard drives completely. Processors started going multi core, and in the case of these ceramic drives: lasers can’t get much smaller and stay powerful enough to write, and magnifying lenses also can’t keep shrinking.

          Aside from that, this tech is all physical, which means noise, and no one wants to go back to hearing noisy hard drives again. Lol

    • Bread@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months 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.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

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

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wow, more amazing technology I can’t wait to never hear about again…

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ceramic drives have been in the news for a few years now. They have been edging towards commercial availability for a while. It might take a while until they become available to consumers like yourself, but it’s not like nothing is happening.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months 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.

    • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months 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
        7
        ·
        9 months 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
          7
          ·
          9 months 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
        3
        ·
        9 months 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.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m sure the plates are reasonable but are you going to be sticking a electron microscope in your office…?

          We’re talking about equipment that’s hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in order to write and read from these plates.

          • Brokkr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I get your point, but the consumer version may not need to be as complex as an electron microscope. Additionally, there will be much more demand for these than electron microscopes. I’m speculating here, but both of these factors together could reduce the price significantly.

        • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months 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
          1
          ·
          9 months 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.