What is Digg?46 Comments
- chimona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Per square inch? I thought we lived in a three dimensional world..."
The surface of a disk is two dimensional, guy.
the holograph only makes it virtually three dimensional. - mooseboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Duke Nukem Forever will be released on holographic media.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Just because it's cool doesnt mean you can dupe it (several times) to the front page. Come on diggers!
http://digg.com/hardware/Inphase_Technologies_Unveils_Holographic_Drive_Prototype
http://digg.com/hardware/InPhase_announces_300GB_holographic_discs
http://digg.com/technology/300_gigabytes_(GB)_capacity_on_a_single_disk_
http://digg.com/technology/300GB_disc_set_to_challenge_DVD
http://digg.com/technology/300_Gb(_)_per_square_inch_storage_in_2006,_thanks_to_holographic_storage
Yes and those were just the times it hit the front page. Do people even check whenthey submit this stuff? - looklikecontest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This is the same product that was discussed in this post: http://digg.com/technology/300_Gb(_)_per_square_inch_storage_in_2006,_thanks_to_holographic_storage
just that the last article was mixing up gigabits and gigabytes. - Echidna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, but most current hard drives can't sustain more than 50MB/s transfer rates.
So, 20MB/s transfer for a *write once* media isn't bad at all. Compare it to a CD-R; they can't get much more than 8MB/s. The real kicker is that it reads in parallel. This means that it can sustain 100MB/s read transfer rates. Sure, it will take a little while to archive all your stuff, but the recall will be faster than your Hard Drive. - iWasHere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Before to long, TB size drives will be the norm.
- piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+620MB/sec is more than enough for me...
Imagine having a 1.6TB disk. I'd have my torrents downloading directly onto it, and I'd save my work there and on my hard drive at the same time. I'd love it! - sunnyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think it's time all companies start posting specs in BYTES instead of bits as a standard. That 515 giga*bits* equates to about 64 gigabytes (still impressive but misleading at the same time). Yet they post their transfer speeds at 20MBytes. No one determines disk space requirements in bits and a lot of us are starting to get sick of dividing by 8 to get real world figures.
- morcheeba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Archival backups are one of the main benefits -- they say the chemistry is inherently stable. Unlike tape, there are no magnetic pieces to flake off. CDs and DVDs require a reflective aluminum layer that is prone to oxidation. Also, since data is stored throughout the media (instead of just on a thin layer), it is harder to damage. And when you do damage it, there are layers upon layers of error correction built in.
Chemistry: http://www.inphase-technologies.com/technology/tour/tour5.html - piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's good to see this type of technology finally approaching release.
Does anyone know how this media compares to CDs as a long term backup solution? Do they degrade with time like CDs? - piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is aimed at the same arena as floppys/cds/dvds etc. reasonable capacity, highly stable media (I hope), at the cost of being slow to write to, for backup purposes.
- Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well the article did mention the storage media being used for 'archival' purposes at a couple of points. I'd say that if they mention you being able to store your DVD's on it, it would last a while..
Could be wrong of course, but using lasers instead of magnetism to store data probably lasts a lot longer. As for comparisons, we'll probably have to wait for more info to come out..
Jimzip :D - piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Zirtbow
These are aimed at a completely different market to hard drives. Hard drives are fast, but delicate. These disks will be used to backup data just like cd's and dvd's are used at the moment. They arn't competing with hard drives. - Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And harddrive manufacturers need to stop using that "billion bytes per gigabyte" bullcrap. If I buy a drive I don't want to find out that I've lost 10% of my storage because of rounding.
- SoulMaster2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That drive looks huge, I hope that's not the final design.
- SteaminTmann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What about the volatility?
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4by that time all the kids will be running to Circuit city to buy a 100 packs of blank ones for six bucks to make copies....
- IcanFLY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As a comparison, it seems stardard magnetic media hard drives are approx. 130 gigabits / square inch and the introduction of perpendicular storage will be about 230 gigabits / square inch.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hard_drive_technology_breaks_storage_density_record - zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wouldn't bank on this stuff until its out. With there being hard drives out that are hundreds of gigs already I wouldn't be surprised if normal HDs catch up to this before it actually comes out if ever. I've had my hopes busted before on 'promising technology' that never got to what it was hinted to be. Does anyone remember bitboys? I think they make graphics chips for cell phones now.
- davidrsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Word. think of all the HD DVD's/Blu Ray disks you can store on there...
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You mean, released for holodeck. Finally I'll be able to kick ass and chew bubblegum.
- morcheeba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not. The back 50-66% is taken up mostly with electronics -- these will shrink as it goes in to mass production.
Remember, their initial market will be industrial users of tape backups -- so they are replacing rack-mounted autoloaders. As long as the drive fits in a standard rack, there is no incentive yet to make it any less deep. - dbpigeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, they probably do, and when they see how many there are already, they submit theirs cause they think they have a good change at frontpage, which sadly, they do.
- Negyxo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You guys ever consider that by the time DNF comes out that some gamers will have been BORN when it was first announced?
- awilke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Isn't SATA2 300Mb per second transfer rate?
- StealthGod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My thoughts exactly. Lets revisit this new when the drive is actually in production and reviewable. Until then we're only taking thier word on things and reposting the same article multiple times.
- piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah you're right, I guess it's too young to tell how long they will last! Bit of a problem really. We need time machines...
- zydehkim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How is the name of that site supposed to be pronounced?
- zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well I could back up all my dvd's to this.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Portuguese: http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=521
- piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think its G-(as in get, girl)-izmag, as it relates to the phrase "Gizmo" meaning gadget.
...possibly... - thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How's your name supposed to be pronounced?
- forgetfulca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This looks like a weeks-old dupe, but anyway:
300 gigaBYTES per cd is not, in the technology leap sense, that big of a deal. It hasn't trickled down to home use yet, but in business usage I and folks I deal with everyday are frustrated by current storage speeds, density and sizes. ie, just today one of our customers was looking for terabytes in a network storage device. he's got 140 gigs to back up every night to tape. That backup currently takes from 6pm until 5am to run. 300 gigs (not yet in production, remember) will be just in time when it arrives not ahead of the need for it at all. something 5, 10 or 100 times that size would truly be a paradigm buster..
as another example, it currently takes around an hour to image someone's hard drive. (say an 40 or 80 gig hd.) That's at a sustained rate of between 500-800 mb/min. it's theoretically possible for the thing to be doing 1.2gb/min, but with fragmenting & random dispersion you will never see it. Anyway, a whole hour, just to save all your stuff. crazy! just 10 years ago, that transfer (your computer's hard drive. obviously it was much smaller) took just a few minutes. The transfer rate has GOT to go up. I'd rather have that than quadruple the space. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice, but I'm not getting excited till some real product is out on the market.
- DrNoDoze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Because it takes advantage of volumetric efficiencies rather than only recording on the surface of the material" So it seems to me that it is not writing on the surface, but the entire medium ... hence the increased storage. Not sure why they did not give data to size measurements in inches cubed.
- 1C0N, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its about time we moved up in how we store our data. Hell the idea of holographic storage has been around in the Sci-Fi universe for ages now we finally get to see it in action. I can't wait to see what they make this into.
- dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1`Isn't SATA2 300Mb per second transfer rate?' ... well, yes, the interface is (300 MB/s, actually), but no single drive can sustain anywhere near that rate. Even ATA/133 is 133 MB/s -- still faster than any single drive (except maybe some solid state ones.)
In any event, 20 MB/s isn't so bad, especially for the first version if a product. Give it a few years, and maybe it will approach the theoretical maximum of a SATA2 (or whatever comes later) connection. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Portuguese: http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=521
- Echidna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Isn't SATA2 300Mb per second transfer rate?"
Woops, I missed your little b. Watch your bits and Bytes. You mean 300MB/s. - Lazybones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes, but this tech is more like a replacment to CD/DVD/TAPE than it is to a harddrive..
- CedanticPunt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13to != too
- DrGonzo1184, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I already have one... well, it is a raid of four 300GB 7200rpm firewire drives, but it is still a 1.2TB drive with a 400mb/s transfer rate... 800mb/s when I upgrade my firewire card.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Bravo!
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Why is parent buried?! His point is extremely valid: for all we know, the harddrive is 10 feet thick!
- looklikecontest, on 10/12/2007, -23/+1This is the same product that was discussed in this post: http://digg.com/technology/300_Gb(_)_per_square_inch_storage_in_2006,_thanks_to_holographic_storage
just that the last article was mixing up gigabits and gigabytes.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is