IBM Builds Monster 120-Petabyte Data "Drive"

Status
Not open for further replies.

daygall

Distinguished
Oct 17, 2009
78
0
18,630
0
thats alot of pron O_O

on a more serious note *cough*

cant wait for more miniaturization :D 3tb now hopefully 6-8 in by 2015... baring the Apocalypse lol
 

techseven

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2009
81
0
18,630
0
Advanced tagging, mapping and storage of porn?

120 Petabytes = 120.000 Terabytes / 2TB per drive would equal 60.000 2TB drives, but they store it on 200.000 drives?

120.000 Terabytes / 200.000 drives = 600MB per drive. So they must need all these drives to make it fast enough...?
 

zanny

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2008
214
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]daygall[/nom]thats alot of pron O_Oon a more serious note *cough*cant wait for more miniaturization 3tb now hopefully 6-8 in by 2015... baring the Apocalypse lol[/citation]

We have been pushing the limits of mechanical disk reading lasers. Blue spectrum is the smallest imprint we are going to get, and the data error limits on drives past 3 terabytes are really small, in that it is very likely to have a bad sector somewhere on the disk by that point.
 

oparadoxical_

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2010
98
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]techseven[/nom]120 Petabytes = 120.000 Terabytes / 2TB per drive would equal 60.000 2TB drives, but they store it on 200.000 drives?120.000 Terabytes / 200.000 drives = 600MB per drive. So they must need all these drives to make it fast enough...?[/citation]
Actually, 120 petabytes=122,880Tb which equals 61,440 individual 2Tb HDDs.
Then, the 122,880tb=125,829,120Gb and if you divide that by 200,000, you get about 630gb per HDD.
 

PennyLife

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2011
89
0
18,660
10
I can only imagine two different types of entities that would want to purchase this:

- A military agency, OR

- A company that is preparing for and aiming to be a big provider of cloud services.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
1,636
0
19,860
27
This is probably to backup facebook, so the advertisers can find historical data a million years from now, and match your great great great.....(x100) great grand sons face to yours for their next gen ancestry.com ad's
 

Azimuth01

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2009
73
0
18,630
0
Google must be about to hatch their master plan....
First: consolidate all the information they ever collected onto one machine
Next: Begin analyzing trends using variables and timetables from every known source
Lastly: Use this information to predict the future and take over the world
 

Azimuth01

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2009
73
0
18,630
0
Google must be about to hatch their master plan....
First: consolidate all the information they ever collected onto one machine
Next: Begin analyzing trends using variables and timetables from every known source
Lastly: Use this information to predict the future and take over the world
 

a sandwhich

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2010
112
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]jsanthara[/nom]Do you think it will cost more than $150, because I have a little over $300 and I want to buy 2.[/citation]
lol wut?
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
403
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]techseven[/nom]Advanced tagging, mapping and storage of porn?120 Petabytes = 120.000 Terabytes / 2TB per drive would equal 60.000 2TB drives, but they store it on 200.000 drives?120.000 Terabytes / 200.000 drives = 600MB per drive. So they must need all these drives to make it fast enough...?[/citation]

You're forgetting the overhead for running as a RAID 10. So likely 1.5 TB with double the drives for the mirroring.

So, 90k for one RAID 0 and then another 90k for the other side of the mirror of the RAID 0.
 

Azimuth01

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2009
73
0
18,630
0
Google must be about to hatch their master plan....
First: consolidate all the information they ever collected onto one machine
Next: Begin analyzing trends using variables and timetables from every known source
Lastly: Use this information to predict the future and take over the world
 

mcd023

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2010
370
0
18,780
0
I'm not the RAID expert, but would a RAID 5 be better for redundancy? I know that the 2 drives in a RAID 10 that have the same data failing are improbable, but I was just wondering.

On another thought: think of how many drives they'll be replacing like, what, every day? I've heard of large arrays needing several replacement drives/wk. Imagine this!
 

chickenhoagie

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
517
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]I'm not the RAID expert, but would a RAID 5 be better for redundancy? I know that the 2 drives in a RAID 10 that have the same data failing are improbable, but I was just wondering.On another thought: think of how many drives they'll be replacing like, what, every day? I've heard of large arrays needing several replacement drives/wk. Imagine this![/citation]I think you're right. RAID 5 is the best RAID solution for mirroring/backup as far as I know. Certainly better than RAID 10
 
G

Guest

Guest
It stores every phone call, text message, email, message board, forum post, and news comment (and miscellaneous) from around the world. It stores, searches for specific words, names, and phrases, and determines the relevance, if any, then permanently saves (xferred to smaller system) or purges the data. All voice and data communications are being rerouted through specific satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the earth.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I got 600 000 000 000 000 , which should be 600tbs for drive. Or would be.

Given that 120pbs would equal 120 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Still seems like theres a varible of different not included somewhere even on this scale.

But after checking again for like the 5 time be 600gs per drive for peta.

K-zon:

Then whatever that would round too or from on ideas of how hard drives say calculate.


Shouldn't be that hard of a problem at like all, but seems to have its place of "catch" for some reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY