• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

      • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

  • yggstyle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        This is also meant to compete with LTO tapes. To my knowledge, the current best is LTO9 with a max uncompressed storage of 18TB per tape.

        100-200 TB on a disc would be huge as they could replace 5-11 tapes with one disc and have better random seek times.

        Hopefully this does not end up like HVD which was promising but ended up dying due to the initial cost:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

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

        recently fixed

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

        • s0ckpuppet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          I wonder if in the context of storing 200 TB whether the added cost now makes sense given what a comparable SSD or HDD equivalent would run.

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

            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.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

            • wildbus8979
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Also LTO is rather expensive, way out of range for the home archivist. Discs tend to be much cheaper! Hopefully this is the case for these as well.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Optical discs are not one thing, they’re a variety of different technologies. This particular one is predicted to last many decades.

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Stamping glyphs into clay seems to be pretty decent, too. If you don’t have access to granite. Especially in this economy.

    • banichan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Depends on what material they switch to. They could be using some new polymer or something, hence the longer lifespan.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • don@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        From the article:

        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.

    • wildbus8979
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      *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!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

      I absolutely cannot wait for these new discs to be available!

  • Imgonnatrythis
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    No Gina, I’m not happy to see you. I just have a very big disc in my pocket.

    • lingh0e
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      They missed their chance at marketing a BFD… or even BBD (big byte disc).

  • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

  • noseatbelt@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I know it’s impractical, but I’m still a bit disappointed that they didn’t mean something the size of a laser disc.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Seems the researcher’s concept is to have data on both sides of the disc and have it sitting in a datacenter. I don’t really buy the use case.

    • withabeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve worked for companies backing up 100s of petabytes a year on tape. This is audit and log data they are required to keep as well as business data.

      If these discs are significantly cheaper than tape, then there’s your use case.