1.6TB / second internet?



If ISPs promote connections with that speed, would guys like WD even need to exist? On the plus side, there will be an insane boom for cloud services. Also, this will be a major added confidence boost for those working at DropBox after their conference.
 
SideGeek said:
If ISPs promote connections with that speed, would guys like WD even need to exist? On the plus side, there will be an insane boom for cloud services.
Click to expand...

Ummm, SideGeek, you don't seem very geeky. Data in "the cloud" is stored on hard drives too.
 
SideGeek said:
Sorry for not making it clear. I was talking about the portable hard drives.
Click to expand...

l.jpg
 
Back in the 1990's I read an obscure article about a Set-Top TV box that used LIGHT to store data. The article had said you could download a movie to watch in less than 5 minutes over their OPTICAL Network Feed.


It was in some magazine at a Doctor's office.


The article said NOTHING about hard storage for the data or how it would keep the information if there was a power outage since it was stored in the Light Beam.

I of course just saw the FLAWS and kinda forgot about it. But once we had FIOS I remembered the article. (But not the Magazine or the Author.)

I've since done extensive searching and found NOTHING about it now.


Something like Laser Light Storage for On Demand delivery with Hard storage for back-up/reference would work GREAT as a Server in the Cloud.


Of course once they perfect Synthetic Crystal Manufacturing we will have the best of storage space, SPEED of access, and a non-deteriorating storage medium to boot!!


Ooda Lolly!!


Lulz
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ummm, SideGeek, you don't seem very geeky. Data in "the cloud" is stored on hard drives too.
Click to expand...

It would make a huge difference to hard disk companies though, sale volumes would drop massively. Consumers store data much less efficiently than cloud storage companies would.

How many 2TB hard disks are out there with a few gb on them?
 
*facepalm* I was talking about lack of need for portable hard drives (i now realize which was besides the point) and you were talking about the server hard drive data transfer rates being lesser than the internets.

Damn, bring it. I deserve this for the shit i said.
 
mituozo said:
It would make a huge difference to hard disk companies though, sale volumes would drop massively. Consumers store data much less efficiently than cloud storage companies would.

How many 2TB hard disks are out there with a few gb on them?
Click to expand...

Well, on the subject of redundancy, Cloud/server storage is typically raided, so this equates to more HDD's used. Then you have versioning and archiving.. and then encryption (which uses more space)

There's also the lifetime of HDD's, typically a big vendor will replace HDD's when they start to fail, or when warranty expires or that 1TB HDD is taking up space that can now be used by a 4TB HDD.

Also, as a side, I bet the average person who joins the internet, creates a footprint at least a few GB's in their lifetime across the interwebs just in server logs, retained personal data etc...

So I would have to disagree about sales dropping. Consumer sales, maybe, almost certainly. But on the whole I bet sales are growing.
 
mituozo said:
Consumers store data much less efficiently than cloud storage companies would.
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily. Cloud storage companies assign a certain amount of storage capacity to each user and its up to the user to decide how he uses that capacity. He might not require the remaining few GBs, which again leads to inefficient use of storage (just like how it was on the portable hdd).
 
SideGeek said:
Well, not necessarily. Cloud storage companies assign a certain amount of storage capacity to each user and its up to the user to decide how he uses that capacity. He might not require the remaining few GBs, which again leads to inefficient use of storage (just like how it was on the portable hdd).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Your allocated storage amount is a number in a database. They can allocate you TB's in milliseconds. You only use what you use.
 
mituozo said:
It would make a huge difference to hard disk companies though, sale volumes would drop massively. Consumers store data much less efficiently than cloud storage companies would.

How many 2TB hard disks are out there with a few gb on them?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd say our usage of bandwidth and HD space would just expand with the technology. Remember when the latest, kick ass game was huge, because it took up a whole two 3.5" floppy disks? Things like the movie industry would evolve, start filming with different formats / resolutions that take up way more space, etc.

Only difference is, they'd have to shift their focus from consumers to businesses. Instead of offering 2TB drives, they'll have to offer 350,000TB hard drives that are blazing fast for $40k a pop, type of thing.
 
The fact of the matter is that very few people will have these kinds of speeds any time soon, especially in the developing world, nor the equipment to utilize such vast quantities of data (or perhaps we will all have medical imaging equipment in our homes by then?). 4K Ultra HD TVs are on their way but it will take years before everyone adopts them as they have done with 1080p. The hardware won't require anything close to 1.6 Tbps to receive data nor any greater storage than what we already have, so hard drive companies will keep on keeping on for the foreseeable future.

Talking about read/write speeds, the fastest PCI Express SSDs can write about 4 gigabytes a second and read at about 6 gigabytes a second. That's roughly equivalent to a 40-60 Gbps connection, which no one has yet. Although there are some demos of fast connections out there in the 40 Gbps range, I think the fastest commercially available connection is the 2 Gbps offered by Sony in Japan?

Plus people with 50 or 100 megabit connections aren't even utilizing their bandwidth to its fullest, and even if they are, download caps are in place by most major carriers anyway.

Then you have to think about what publishers are even going to be able to serve up data that fast? It doesn't matter if you can download that fast if no one is sending that fast.

Beyond that, so what if you can download your 16gb Ultra HD bootleg movies, or stream an Ultra HD Netflix show, in less 1 second? It only means you can download faster, not that you actually need any more storage than you already have. I mean, what are you going to download that is going to require such vast quantities of storage? Besides, by the time a 1.6 terabit connection is the norm for anyone, we'll have vastly improved storage options I'm sure, both local, and in the cloud.

I think most of us will be close to dead before it becomes an issue that we should be concerned about.
 
6mbps has been the fastest I've ever had in my home. Waiting on the technicians to show up today and upgrade me to 15mps :banana_sml:
 
I've had 150mbps, you still cap out at around 6mbps because of the servers you're downloading from.
1.6tbps up speed would be impressive imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom