Will we see yottabyte Hard Drives in our life time?

>>52659888
Depends how old you are

>>52659888
does anyone have an infographic that shows megabytes < gigabytes < terabytes etc?

>>52660002
literally 2 seconds on google

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bit_and_byte_prefixes

File: yottabyte for fucktards.jpg (21KB, 450x481px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x481px

>>52660002

>>52660002
Is it that hard to multiply or divide by 1024?

It's funny how easily attainable storage is exactly enough for typical human computational endeavors. Eventually some major breakthrough will happen and we'll have storage devices the size of a microsd card that hold more data than the entirety of human civilization could possibly fill.

>>52660158
I know nothing about data: the post.

Research the bekenstein bound. Or computational limits at all.

>>52660074
You mean 1000 right? After all we're talking about Yottabytes, not Yobibytes.

And to answer OPs question, probably no, because hard drives are going to cease to exist except for legacy hardware within the next 5-10 years.

File: 1453497757909.jpg (22KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x333px

>>52660326
>because hard drives are going to cease to exist except for legacy hardware
ur a cheeky kunt m8

Nope. But Yottabyte SSD might be possible.

>>52660069
ill fucking kill you nerd

>>52659888
Not a yottabyte hard drive, some form of SSD or DNA drive possibly.

>>52660449
Kek 2bh lad

>>52659888
What I think, is that our computers keep upgrading and upgrading, is that we will be around Terabyte for an extremely long time. I think data storage and compression technology will increase.

they should just invent dataless computers then you dont need storage

Let's assume for a moment that the average rate of growth of SPINNAN METUL PLATURS based storage solutions will be the same for the next 50 years, as for the last 50 years. This is EXTREMELY optimistic, all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to increasing hard-drive density has already been picked, we're getting closer and closer to the limits of SPINNAN DISKU technology.

The first hard drive in the world came out about 50 years ago. It was the IBM 250 Disk Storage Unit for the IBM 305 RAMAC. The dimensions were 152cm * 172cm * 740cm, which comes out to 1934656000 mm^3 for 5MB of storage. This comes out to just barely over 370 mm^3 per byte, assuming a KB is 1024 bytes and not 1000.

Now, on to modern drives.

A decently high end 2TB 2.5in drive measures (give or take a mm for different manufacturers) 15mm * 70mm * 100mm, which comes out to around 49*(10^-6) mm^3 per byte.

An 8TB archival 3.5in drive from Seagate is 26mm * 101mm * 147mm, which comes out to a slightly better 44*(10^-6) mm^3 per byte.

In those fifty years, the ratio between storage amount and volume occupied went up very close to 8.4*(10^6) times.

Since a yottabite is 10^15 TB, and making the very optimistic assumption that you're a healthy human being (on /g/, kek) person in his early 20s that will live to an average life of early 70s... no. You're not even remotely close, you're off by roughly 8 and a half orders of magnitude. No yottabyte drives for you, at least not based on magnetic spinning disks.

>>52660992
Okay, you first :)

>>52659888
Yes, but they will be so delicate that literally anything will kill them

File: siliconchip.jpg (231KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x1000px

>>52661153
Done

>>52659888
The storage capacity of Hard Drives has been increased over the years by shrinking the distance between the head and the platter, allowing the sectors in the disk to be smaller. The height of the head above the platter is maintained by the head "floating" on a cushion of air dragged along by the spinning platter. Hard Drives cannot function in a vacuum.

Modern Hard Drives have a separation of as little as 3 nm between the head and the platter. A nitrogen molecule (main component of air) is on the order of 0.3 nm in diameter. Hard drives as we know them will not be able to sustain increases in storage capacity much longer, because any more significant decreases in the separation will mean air molecules can no longer fit under the head.

Fun watch for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiy_eHdj8kg

>>52661454
SSDs can theoretically be infinitely small.

File: micro_sd_card_2gb_01.jpg (48KB, 1000x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1000x400px

>>52661454
2GB of data and it's already way less than 0.3nm in diameter.

>>52661614
>>52661565
The picture in the OP seems to be specifying HDDs, which have very real limits on how much further they can be improved.

>>52661565
SSDs CANNOT theoretically contain an infinite amount of info in a finite volume, nor a finite amount of info in an infinitely small volume. The maximum possible info that can be known about a finite volume of space is the position and velocity of every atom in that volume.

>>52661614
I don't think you know what a nanometre is.

>>52661789
>SSDs CANNOT theoretically contain an infinite amount of info in a finite volume, nor a finite amount of info in an infinitely small volume. The maximum possible info that can be known about a finite volume of space is the position and velocity of every atom in that volume.

You realize that atoms aren't the only way of storing data, right?

>>52659888
Unless it becomes cheap enough to the point where it doesn't matter, probably not considering you'd never need anywhere near that capacity

>>52661789
>The maximum possible info that can be known about a finite volume of space is the position and velocity of every atom in that volume.

niga they already split the atom in like 1842. baka

is there even a petabyte hdd

>>52661845
The Bekenstein Bound

>...entropy measures the number of bits needed to describe the chip’s microstate. Some of those bits go towards describing the parts of the chip designed to store information. More storage capacity requires more entropy. And since the entropy is limited (in terms of the chip’s mass and size) by the expression above, so is its storage capacity. To increase the amount of information a device can carry beyond any bound, we would have to increase its size and/or mass beyond any bound too.

https://plus.maths.org/content/bekenstein

A finite storage device can only hold a finite amount of data, because there is a finite amount of information needed to describe the state of that storage device (including the non-storage parts of it) in perfect complete detail.

>>52661889
Biggest hard drive on the market is 10 TB right now

>>52661938
Yeah, that's literally irrelevant to this discussion.

>>52662093
Well then I'm ignorant, please explain to me how data storage density will increase some 11 orders of magnitude when devices today already work on the scale of a few dozen atoms.

File: 820.jpg (27KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x367px

>>52661356

>>52659888
The human brain has a physical capacity of about 2tb but can store exabytes. We'll likely see a change in how data is stored that will allow yottabytes.

>>52663487
how the fuck do you even begin to measure brain capacity in computational terms?

>>52661614
>diameter

triggered

>>52663487
citation pls

>>52663594
you don't
its all conjecture
i once read a statistic that the human brain could hold 100 million hours of 1080p video

>>52663785
I once read a statistic that said I could probably fit a pineapple in my arsehole so statistics confirmed for always true and reliable regardless of how mangled their representation and interpretation I guess

File: 1453937643243.png (379KB, 894x999px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 894x999px

>>52663844
>how mangled their representation and interpretation
only thing mangled is your arsehole you goddamn fruit

>>52663844
exactly my point, you can't trust these statistics unless they are well cited and well grounded

File: 1385707929596s.jpg (2KB, 110x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 110x125px

>>52663869

>>52660071
>implying photos and mp3s are of similar filesizes
oy vey, who made this infographic

>>52662350
>what is library of alexandria

>>52663785
>11415.525 years of video

Well if you lived to be 100, slept a third of your life away (8hours=33 years), and since most people don't really remember life before the age of 4 (maybe age 3 at the most). That would put you at 62 years or 543120 hours of awake living. If to record an hour cost 8 GB, then that would result in 4,344,960 GB or 4.344 PB of storage.

My reasoning for this is that learning and knowledge can only be assimilated when the person is awake. You cannot learn new things while asleep. Also you cannot know something if you never experienced it during the few hundred thousand hours you were awake (know something that you never knew).

Also very likely the true number is far less than this and is very closely related to brain size, age, and chemical potential of neurons within your brain.

>>52659888
>Will we see yottabyte drives?
Of course.
>Will we see yottabyte hard drives.
No, HDD's will be dead and SSD's will become the standard.

>>52660992
How will we store things then genius?

>>52664921
sleeping can organise our knowledge and memories.

HDDs are very quickly reaching the useful limit of their storage space, because they're just too damn slow. If read/write speeds actually scaled with data size, it wouldn't be a problem, but a current 8TB drive is only marginally faster than a 2TB one. At some point, it will take so long to backup data that the drive would fail before it actually finished backing up.

SSDs are already hitting 8TB storage capacity today, so there is no technical limitation, we just have to wait for the price to drop per GB. Unlike HDDs, the durability of an SSD actually scales with volume, and with speeds of over 2GB per second, backing up that much data is also more practical.

>>52659888
hard drives? maybe not. other storage technology such as tape drives may hit the petabyte mark very soon, considering 185TB drives already exist

File: Gt+telling+other+people+they+have+autism+while+heavily++_deb3aee3dfb611e05e837e4497011f6d.jpg (5KB, 325x143px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 325x143px

>>52660158
Holy shit

>>52664921
I have had insights, imagined new worlds and experiences and have come up with solutions to problems while asleep.

Imagination, extrapolation, innovation, creativity, conception, fabrication and ingenuity do not stop while you sleep.

>>52659888
in a regular human life time, no. in our life times, probably. technology probably wont ever let us die

Can you report on-topic threads for being sufficiently shit?