In 50 years time you'll just transfer the content to your brain and then when you kick the bucket the data can be safely transfered to parties preselected only with the DNA of your choice so only they can access it. I think.
By Kevin EastmanPosted Saturday 26th April 2008 21:24 GMT
So if they can advertise that it will last 50 years, does that mean that this stuff was actually invented 50 years ago, and they are just releasing it now? Will they back up this claim with a 50 year warrenty?
By rasputinsDogPosted Sunday 27th April 2008 05:57 GMT
Surely something will come along that will out do this and we will all move on to it like good like sheeple. Some, yet to be born, computer geek like us will cream his shorts at the chance to emulate one of these drives in order to retrieve the data from it. But this assuming that the coming NWO will allow unfettered computer access. I guess though even the NWO will need data storage.
By Flocke KroesPosted Sunday 27th April 2008 06:04 GMT
I would buy 500GB hard disks now. Well before there is a risk that the disks become unreadable, I could replace them with something half the cost. Repeat until 50 years pass, and the total will still cost less than holographic media, plus I do not have to pay $18,000,000 for a reader in fifty year's time.
By braemar BartlettPosted Sunday 27th April 2008 16:52 GMT
@Dom:
Bluray is dead? Really? I sure as HELL am not going to go spend $18,000 on one of these machines... BD already has prototype discs that can hold 200GB+, and they sure don't cost $180 per disc. If you are looking to archive that much data to begin with, you're going to want several copies.
I'd rather have six 50GB discs (300GB) for ~$210 total (allowing me to have redundant backups), than 1 disc that ACTUALLY lasts god knows how long for $180 'in volume' (how many?)
$30 extra for redundancy is well worth it in my book.
What happens if one of those 300GB discs burns incorrectly? What a waste of almost $200....
All that being said, I'm all for holo-storage, but it just doesn't seem reasonable yet..
By Christian BergerPosted Sunday 27th April 2008 19:33 GMT
Actually you could make CDs and DVDs last virtually forever. You do have some flexibility with the standard so theoretically you could do something like a diamond CD which lasts millenia.
Something CD or DVD based would actually be a better candidate for such a system as, like many people noted, you probably won't get any devices that can still read those media after 50 years. It's much more likely that you will be able to read a CD as the backwards compatibility strings probably will last much longer. Even the newest HD-DVD drives still can read CD-Roms.
Maybe one could build some etching system for CDs where you have a glass or ceramic disk you etch your data out and seal it so it'll last for centuries.
By Bronek KozickiPosted Sunday 27th April 2008 20:31 GMT
We had that one, long time ago. Unluckily, storage density was rather poor. Media was also close to silicone ... stone.
I'm still pissed off holographic storage doesn't come in tiny cubes. #
By alex dPosted Monday 28th April 2008 03:30 GMT
According to this guy hard drives, properly recorded (start from a blank, write to it once) hard drives last for at least 20-30 years. It'll be a lot longer if you "refresh" it, read then write back the data remagnetizing the platter. Even if the hard drive has trouble reading itself, data can be recovered with specialized but widespread hd data-recovery machines. Try doing that to a holographic disk. The biggest advantage of hard drives, besides speed and capacity, is that it'll be much easier to find a working SATA port than some niche holographic reader.
Besides, NUMBERS LIKE "50 years" etc ARE RETARDED. All storage devices use error-correction algorithms. If you want your data to stay around for 100 years, just tune the algorithm to have enough redundancy.
By Malcolm WeirPosted Monday 28th April 2008 06:32 GMT
While a hard drive _platter_ may hold its data for 20-30 years (a claim I don't know enough to dispute, although that reference contains enough questionable statements that it's probably disputable!), the drive mechanism almost certainly won't. If you leave a disk inoperative for even a few years, phenomena such a stiction (to name just one) will likely kill the mechanism, so you won't be able to spin up the disk.
Therein lies the biggest flaw with hard disk as a backup: failure modes for disks tend to result in the thing being unusable (and therefore all the data being lost) a lot more frequently than failure modes for (e.g.) tapes or DVDs or CDs...
This leads to the issue of "acceptable" loss criteria; many applications are OK with the idea of (say) 99% of the data being retrievable after 50 years, which is not wildly different than with paper archives!
Oh, and ECC won't help you at all if all your ECC is on the same device...
By Anonymous CowardPosted Monday 28th April 2008 11:30 GMT
I for one would want to have to sift through 50 years of backups in order to find the data I want. In most "real life" situations the real selling point is speed and capacity anything else is either irrelavant or a bonus. Give it a few years and it will be cheaper, more capacious, faster and most likely superceded.
Alien?, cos in fifty years we may well be using alien technology
By Anonymous CowardPosted Monday 28th April 2008 12:03 GMT
I'm with Alex here. By migrating the data from RAID SAN to SAN in distributed locations over 50 years you're ensuring its integrity constantly - 300GB will be loose change by then and this will take no time and next to no effort. By contrast good luck finding a DVD player in 2058, let alone one of these specialised devices.
I do not get why anyone uses optical anymore. Having to physically change media to run a backup? Sooo last century.
By Mr Michael StrelitzPosted Monday 28th April 2008 13:57 GMT
Do we have any information on the accelerated life tests used to justify 50 years?
What are the storage conditions required to ensure 50 years, including acceptable margins ? We need wide margins that will apply to standard well designed "green" offices that do not rely on air-conditioning in summer and make do with minimal artificial heating in winter.
Comments on: InPhase finally to phase in holographic disk
Official secrets act #
By Sampler Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 16:11 GMT
RE: Offical secrets act #
By Dan Hardiker Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 16:43 GMT
50 year lifespan #
By Mark_T Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 16:51 GMT
Organic Matter Storage #
By D Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 19:37 GMT
Re: 50 year lifespan #
By Pete Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 19:38 GMT
I want #
By heystoopid Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 20:22 GMT
Delicious idea but... #
By Alex McKenna Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 20:51 GMT
50 years lifespan? #
By Kevin Eastman Posted Saturday 26th April 2008 21:24 GMT
In 50 years . . . #
By rasputinsDog Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 05:57 GMT
Moore's less #
By Flocke Kroes Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 06:04 GMT
How long does a hard disc retain its data for? #
By call me scruffy Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 06:08 GMT
50, eh? #
By unfunk Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 08:59 GMT
Re: 50, eh? #
By Renato Golin Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 09:25 GMT
A CD-R is often dead within 5 years #
By Richard Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 12:21 GMT
Want One! #
By Dom Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 15:44 GMT
Blu is not dead yet.. #
By braemar Bartlett Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 16:52 GMT
About CDs and DVDs #
By Christian Berger Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 19:33 GMT
RE: About CDs and DVDs #
By Bronek Kozicki Posted Sunday 27th April 2008 20:31 GMT
I'm still pissed off holographic storage doesn't come in tiny cubes. #
By alex d Posted Monday 28th April 2008 03:30 GMT
Hard Drive Life -- @Alex D #
By Malcolm Weir Posted Monday 28th April 2008 06:32 GMT
@Bronek #
By Markie Dussard Posted Monday 28th April 2008 08:39 GMT
@Malcom Weir #
By Anonymous Hero Posted Monday 28th April 2008 10:44 GMT
50 years of data! #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 28th April 2008 11:30 GMT
Hard Drive Life #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 28th April 2008 12:03 GMT
50 years based on what? #
By Mr Michael Strelitz Posted Monday 28th April 2008 13:57 GMT
More then 50 years track record... #
By joli Posted Monday 28th April 2008 18:06 GMT