Just to do a quick correction here... The optical disc in question holds 1.6 PetaBITS, not PetaBYTES, which is a considerable difference in orders of magnitude. Were it 1.6 Petabytes, it'd be a ridiculous amount of storage an order of magnitude above what we've got today. That said, you do seem to self-correct later in the video - it is indeed larger than the current biggest hard drives, but you were a bit off in terms of the conversion. 1.6 Petabits comes out to about 200 TB. Personally I'd like to see if burning those discs ever made it to the consumer space. As-is that'd help for things like cold, archival storage, but obviously it's not very much good for things that aren't WORM-friendly.
Better for data storage than visual media. Some games now require hundreds of gigs be downloaded each time you want to install. Companies would rather you not own a physical copy though.
They can't cut you off if you own the game ... why streaming services are the devil ... they change their catalog and even though you paid, you lose it all
To be honest, the exact same thing was said, and tried, since the CD. It happened also with the DVD and BDs, in BDs it survived in the form of Professional Disc. On that scenario it does make sense as it allows handling it more like a floppy than an optical disc, helps a lot since they're made for professional field/news gathering cameras, but on all other forms, frankly, I would rather have a single drive that can read anything shiny with 12 or 8 cm diameter. Blu Ray's anti-scratch coat has helped me quite a few times, the only time it didn't was when the disc was shipping damaged by a strong dent on the surface, which likely would have broken a caddy as well.
0:20 what is this, magnetic or optical? I mean we should talk about magnetic tapes too - I remember their really impressive boasts when they hit 50 GB and hard disks were barely at a few gigabytes. They were fighting exactly the same impressions of being a "past" technology, as long ago as that. I think your video needs more visual content. It also needs at least ONE technical diagram that shows something educational about the technology itself, if not one of the actual products being made. Nobody is expecting retail information of course, but any kind of information like manufacturer, vague pricing expectations, all of that is good too.
As someone who has had both CD and DVD media fail over 20+ years (and some that still work fantastic today), I am leery of putting that volume of storage backup on optical media.
This is indeed awesome technology, especially if you can continuously add on to the disc. How much would one disc cost? How fast can certain files be accessed on a full disc? In definite agreement that this will NOT be inexpensive, but the archival aspects of it are really interesting. Thanks for sharing this great information! Cheers!
The disc will be as cheap as they already are plus a markup for capacity perks even though production costs are already the same. Someone did something to similar degrees with a modified CD drive and normal CD-R discs years ago, but read/write times were painfully slow in relation to the capacity, which meant was only okay for archiving things cheaply for those with the time to deal with that. That means, a regular person could have used it, but most would be too impatient to do so, while businesses outright couldn't use it because it was too slow. It's also too fragile, because each scratch destroys a lot more data than before.
Reminder that when CD-Roms first came out, IBM and other PC manufactures dismissed it as nothing more than an enterprise-grade data storage solution, as common civilians would have no use for such vast amounts of data storage. Can't wait for Call of Duty Black Ops 9 to be on a Petabyte disc, because its unfeasible to download it.
Probably mixing up info. There's a tom's guide article which mentions a 200TB/1.6PB disk, but they say petabytes instead of petabits. There are other stories saying the disc is only 125TB or 1 petabit. I wonder if the 60% discrepancy is redundancy/error correction
@@jceggbert5 All the info I've seen mentions the capacity in Petabits so it was definitely an error there, he confused it with Petabytes which a lot of people do, either way 1.6Pb is 200TB not 1600TB as it's not in PB (Petabytes).
15TB discs is probably where we want to get to for Film and TV releases. It should be possible to fit a full multi-season series of many shows onto a single disc at 8k then.
Two commercial uses I could see are entire shows/franchises on a single disc all in 1080 or 2160, or movies compatible with Looking Glass displays, provided it can be read and processed fast enough to accommodate that kind of bitrate.
My NAS uses 20tb HDDs. I hope this petabyte disc makes it to market. There are like zero options for making physical backups of 20tb HDDs. Sure I can use another 20tb HDD as a backup, but the lifespan and fail rate would be about the same as the source drive.
There are LTO7 to LTO9 tapes but the drives are expensive and they do die. At work my LTO7 drive died in less than 4 years which was frustrating as the cost of replacement is around $3800 US.
@@drescherjm I’ve had an LTO drive fail. $4,000 drive and a bunch of useless tape cartridge coasters. I’m hoping the petabyte disc writer won’t be as expensive as tape backup drives.
@@kylehazachode I have 40+ LTO7 tapes currently at work with no drive to read them. After the drive died and the repair shop said it was unfixable I have contacted a different division of my department and I am trying to use their multi drive LTO6 unit for backups however since it's remote and the company policy is 1 GBit max I expect the backups of 150 to 300TB to take weeks.
Be careful with your upper/lower case. 1TB is 8Tb. I don't know how big your drives are, because using a lower case t may mean you're not aware of the difference.
The purpose is not for video usage, the times are over. But for long term data storage it might be a success. The most important thing: there has to a standard for drives that any company can rely on. No standard or high licensing fees, and a lower or non success.
there was an update from the makers of this disc, it actually has a write speed faster than a normal HDD, so for whoever claimed it would be slow there you go
I don't see console manufacturers or movie/TV distributors utilizing these new discs, so assuming burners are eventually made available to the public it will be up to fan communities to make something of them. With Linux gaming growing in popularity for both PC gaming and running emulators, I hope this means a standarduzed system is worked out for a console-like Linux distro to run a variety of games from these discs (heck, maybe the discs could contain a tailored Linux distro that launches for running said games and emulators off of them). Thankfully video will be easier to sort out, what with several standard formats already existing.
@@NoEgg4u 1,6PB = 1,600TB 1,6Pb = 200TB All the articles talk about PetaBITS aka Pb not Petabytes PB. He got the 125TB from converting 1Pb to TB = 125TB, he forgot the decimal.
Not mentioning the difference betwen bit and byte since every other comment already mentions it but this only sounds great for archival storage, not so much for evrryday use. A laser reading off an optical disc is not gonna be faster than a traditional HDD let alone an SSD.
@0:20 "...that can store 1.6 petabytes of data." @0:28 "...that's about 125 terabytes..." That is way off. 1.6 petabytes is approximately just over 1,600 terabytes (not 125 terabytes). Our host was off by nearly 13 times the correct figure. That is not a rounding error. That is a wildly huge error. @0:37 "...the world's largest hard drive holds about 100 terabytes." Our host is spewing nonsense. The world's largest hard drive holds 25 terabytes. Perhaps NASA has a one-of-a-kind hard drive, or the scientists at Area 51 have a 100 terabyte hard drive. But our host would not know about that. There are 100 terabyte storage drives. But they are not hard drives. They are 100% solid state based. Hard drives are mechanical devices, with spinning platters, and actuator arms that travel across the spinning platters. Whereas, solid state drives (SSDs) have no moving parts. SSDs are not hard drives. There are many other differences between hard drives and solid state drives. Their technologies are very different. They share some design attributes -- but very little. As of the date that our host posted this video (09/01/2024), there are no 100 terabyte hard drives.
I'd use BD-Rs but they are way too expensive compared to DVD-Rs even when those were relevant for data storage. Even if a tech like this appears, I can't see it ever being worth the cost, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
For now, yes, but this new technology could at least supplement this, having a niche application in long term archiving. It is also a step in the direction of "optical data chips" as envisioned in certain Sci-Fi franchises.
Optical isn't dead, not by a longshot. There are industry players who are trying to kill it because "fighting piracy" matters more than putting out an actual product, but there have already been several commercially viable advances that only need a bit of promotion to shift the data storage market again.
@@warlockpaladin2261 Good points. I still use optical media for long term archival storage, with my most important files being written to two separate Blu-ray discs once a week, storing the media in cool, dry, fire-resistant cabinets, having progressed through Zip, CD and DVD. If this technology makes it to market at reasonable consumer prices, I'll convert all my media, knowing that it will take but a single disk to store everything that I have at this time.
"It is dead. No one is interested in nor manufactures optical media anymore. Long term archival is done exclusively using LTO tapes." LTO storage is roughly $5 per TB. So if 1.6 PB disks can be purchased for $5,000, then the customer will save $3,000 for 1.6 PB of storage. And instead of needing room to store 133 LTO tapes, you will need room for only a single 1.6 PB disk. And if those 1.6 PB disks sell for $500, or $100, they will blow LTO tapes out of the water. The only advantage that LTO media will have will be that they can be re-used. And then there is Chia crypt-o mining, where the big expenses are the cost of countless large capacity hard drives, and the electricity to keep hundreds (or thousands) of hard drives spinning. With 1.6 PB disks, a single disk can do the job of 80 20TB hard drives. The cost of spinning a single 1.6 PB disk will cost 1/80th of spinning 80 20TB drives. And then there is the cost of air conditioning, to keep the drives from over-heating. 80 hard drives will generate a fair amount of heat. And if you have 200 or more hard drives, you will have to keep costly air conditioning blowing on them 24/7/365. Whereas, two or three 1.6 PB drives will generate imperceptible heat, requiring no air conditioning. The above is off the top of my head. I suspect that there will be many other use cases for archiving big data.
@@NoEgg4uThe scriptwriters and fact checkers made a critical mistake: the amount is 1.6 petabits, not petabytes, thus overstating the storage capacity by a factor of 8. This being said, the equivalent cost would be about $625/disc at the break even cost for the raw media, and your other numbers are generally fair, so while it wouldn't be as disruptive a technology at first, given how previous generations of optical technology progressed in reduced cost over time, if this comes to market, it could make a significant impact.
STILL, It would be great for archive storage. 125TB aslong as the media ware capable of very long term storage. and we had hardware to reload that storage 20 to 100 nyears in the future. that all it will be good for, and since the current state of the world is to firget the past , i can see it failing .
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine having it as a backup. And then accidentally sitting on it.
I expect you would take multiple backups on separate media. Hopefully the disks are only a few hundred dollars each.
sounds like someone doesn't know how modern optical backup works
Just to do a quick correction here...
The optical disc in question holds 1.6 PetaBITS, not PetaBYTES, which is a considerable difference in orders of magnitude. Were it 1.6 Petabytes, it'd be a ridiculous amount of storage an order of magnitude above what we've got today.
That said, you do seem to self-correct later in the video - it is indeed larger than the current biggest hard drives, but you were a bit off in terms of the conversion. 1.6 Petabits comes out to about 200 TB.
Personally I'd like to see if burning those discs ever made it to the consumer space. As-is that'd help for things like cold, archival storage, but obviously it's not very much good for things that aren't WORM-friendly.
"Were it 1.6 Petabytes, it'd be a ridiculous amount of storage"
It's still a ridiculous mount of storage!
Not knowing the difference between a byte and a bit can really screw your ability to title the video correctly.
Better for data storage than visual media. Some games now require hundreds of gigs be downloaded each time you want to install. Companies would rather you not own a physical copy though.
They can't cut you off if you own the game ... why streaming services are the devil ... they change their catalog and even though you paid, you lose it all
I hope it will be in a caddy format.
Yeah, if I'm putting that much data onto anything, it needs to be as physically protected as possible.
To be honest, the exact same thing was said, and tried, since the CD.
It happened also with the DVD and BDs, in BDs it survived in the form of Professional Disc. On that scenario it does make sense as it allows handling it more like a floppy than an optical disc, helps a lot since they're made for professional field/news gathering cameras, but on all other forms, frankly, I would rather have a single drive that can read anything shiny with 12 or 8 cm diameter.
Blu Ray's anti-scratch coat has helped me quite a few times, the only time it didn't was when the disc was shipping damaged by a strong dent on the surface, which likely would have broken a caddy as well.
0:20 what is this, magnetic or optical? I mean we should talk about magnetic tapes too - I remember their really impressive boasts when they hit 50 GB and hard disks were barely at a few gigabytes. They were fighting exactly the same impressions of being a "past" technology, as long ago as that.
I think your video needs more visual content. It also needs at least ONE technical diagram that shows something educational about the technology itself, if not one of the actual products being made. Nobody is expecting retail information of course, but any kind of information like manufacturer, vague pricing expectations, all of that is good too.
This would suitable for servers.
How much would a system cost?
The key question for me is how long will the disks last?
My thought too ...
This is important.
Same!
Also the drive cost can be important.
As someone who has had both CD and DVD media fail over 20+ years (and some that still work fantastic today), I am leery of putting that volume of storage backup on optical media.
This is indeed awesome technology, especially if you can continuously add on to the disc. How much would one disc cost? How fast can certain files be accessed on a full disc? In definite agreement that this will NOT be inexpensive, but the archival aspects of it are really interesting. Thanks for sharing this great information! Cheers!
The disc will be as cheap as they already are plus a markup for capacity perks even though production costs are already the same.
Someone did something to similar degrees with a modified CD drive and normal CD-R discs years ago, but read/write times were painfully slow in relation to the capacity, which meant was only okay for archiving things cheaply for those with the time to deal with that. That means, a regular person could have used it, but most would be too impatient to do so, while businesses outright couldn't use it because it was too slow. It's also too fragile, because each scratch destroys a lot more data than before.
Reminder that when CD-Roms first came out, IBM and other PC manufactures dismissed it as nothing more than an enterprise-grade data storage solution, as common civilians would have no use for such vast amounts of data storage.
Can't wait for Call of Duty Black Ops 9 to be on a Petabyte disc, because its unfeasible to download it.
To get terabytes you multiply the petabyte value by 1000
1.6PB = 1600TB
Easy as that
No idea how you got 125TB
Probably mixing up info. There's a tom's guide article which mentions a 200TB/1.6PB disk, but they say petabytes instead of petabits. There are other stories saying the disc is only 125TB or 1 petabit. I wonder if the 60% discrepancy is redundancy/error correction
@@jceggbert5 All the info I've seen mentions the capacity in Petabits so it was definitely an error there, he confused it with Petabytes which a lot of people do, either way 1.6Pb is 200TB not 1600TB as it's not in PB (Petabytes).
That's great, but it's 68,000 times more than the BD discs I'm using now. Didn't they ever make a Terra byte disc?
Bro fumbled it all:
Bytes instead of bits
125 instead of 1600...
not sure the diameter of that disc, but i've wondered: WHAT IF they make a bluray disc the size of a LASERDISC....that would hold a ton of data.
15TB discs is probably where we want to get to for Film and TV releases. It should be possible to fit a full multi-season series of many shows onto a single disc at 8k then.
Two commercial uses I could see are entire shows/franchises on a single disc all in 1080 or 2160, or movies compatible with Looking Glass displays, provided it can be read and processed fast enough to accommodate that kind of bitrate.
My NAS uses 20tb HDDs. I hope this petabyte disc makes it to market. There are like zero options for making physical backups of 20tb HDDs. Sure I can use another 20tb HDD as a backup, but the lifespan and fail rate would be about the same as the source drive.
There are LTO7 to LTO9 tapes but the drives are expensive and they do die. At work my LTO7 drive died in less than 4 years which was frustrating as the cost of replacement is around $3800 US.
@@drescherjm I’ve had an LTO drive fail. $4,000 drive and a bunch of useless tape cartridge coasters. I’m hoping the petabyte disc writer won’t be as expensive as tape backup drives.
@@kylehazachode I have 40+ LTO7 tapes currently at work with no drive to read them. After the drive died and the repair shop said it was unfixable I have contacted a different division of my department and I am trying to use their multi drive LTO6 unit for backups however since it's remote and the company policy is 1 GBit max I expect the backups of 150 to 300TB to take weeks.
Be careful with your upper/lower case. 1TB is 8Tb. I don't know how big your drives are, because using a lower case t may mean you're not aware of the difference.
The purpose is not for video usage, the times are over. But for long term data storage it might be a success. The most important thing: there has to a standard for drives that any company can rely on. No standard or high licensing fees, and a lower or non success.
there was an update from the makers of this disc, it actually has a write speed faster than a normal HDD, so for whoever claimed it would be slow there you go
Could it compete with tape?
So, what does that translate to in terms of how many DVDs or Blu-Rays one could fit on the disc? Like a thousand blu-rays, or something?
This is a really good idea if can be done at reasonable price.
question is when we will see it for storage purpose for hoarders
Hey Lois, I'm an Optical disk now
I don't see console manufacturers or movie/TV distributors utilizing these new discs, so assuming burners are eventually made available to the public it will be up to fan communities to make something of them. With Linux gaming growing in popularity for both PC gaming and running emulators, I hope this means a standarduzed system is worked out for a console-like Linux distro to run a variety of games from these discs (heck, maybe the discs could contain a tailored Linux distro that launches for running said games and emulators off of them). Thankfully video will be easier to sort out, what with several standard formats already existing.
One small scratch would screw up so much data... 😬
1.6 petabytes is not 125 TB I stopped watching after such a gross mistake. Look it up
For anyone who's curious, it's 16,000 TB
@@ghostcruncher1043 No, it's 1600 TB.
Pretty sure he confused Petabytes with Petabits, either way the correct number is 200TB.
@@AJ-po6up "Pretty sure he confused Petabytes with Petabits, either way the correct number is 200TB."
The correct answer is just north of 1,600 TB.
@@NoEgg4u 1,6PB = 1,600TB
1,6Pb = 200TB
All the articles talk about PetaBITS aka Pb not Petabytes PB. He got the 125TB from converting 1Pb to TB = 125TB, he forgot the decimal.
1.6 petaBYTES is 1600 terabytes. 1.6 petaBITS is 200 terabytes.
nah its not 200TB, but judging by your pfp no wonder you're wrong
Not mentioning the difference betwen bit and byte since every other comment already mentions it but this only sounds great for archival storage, not so much for evrryday use. A laser reading off an optical disc is not gonna be faster than a traditional HDD let alone an SSD.
I guess we now have a great way to back up our trillion images and video of family and friends
@0:20 "...that can store 1.6 petabytes of data."
@0:28 "...that's about 125 terabytes..."
That is way off.
1.6 petabytes is approximately just over 1,600 terabytes (not 125 terabytes).
Our host was off by nearly 13 times the correct figure. That is not a rounding error. That is a wildly huge error.
@0:37 "...the world's largest hard drive holds about 100 terabytes."
Our host is spewing nonsense.
The world's largest hard drive holds 25 terabytes.
Perhaps NASA has a one-of-a-kind hard drive, or the scientists at Area 51 have a 100 terabyte hard drive. But our host would not know about that.
There are 100 terabyte storage drives. But they are not hard drives. They are 100% solid state based.
Hard drives are mechanical devices, with spinning platters, and actuator arms that travel across the spinning platters. Whereas, solid state drives (SSDs) have no moving parts. SSDs are not hard drives.
There are many other differences between hard drives and solid state drives. Their technologies are very different. They share some design attributes -- but very little.
As of the date that our host posted this video (09/01/2024), there are no 100 terabyte hard drives.
That's AI content for ya
I'd use BD-Rs but they are way too expensive compared to DVD-Rs even when those were relevant for data storage. Even if a tech like this appears, I can't see it ever being worth the cost, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
optical storage is very silly.
13 hours ago, said 12
😮
truth is 128GB BDXL. why try buy 128GB BDXL first time. can burn application software, application course, games PC, etc. you think about it yourself.
Dude get youe bits and bytes correct, you're a tech channel, come on
Bla bla bla... This is old technology now resurfaced for commercial use. The technology was invented in 1998 or 1997 by a Romanian.
It is dead. No one is interested in nor manufactures optical media anymore. Long term archival is done exclusively using LTO tapes.
For now, yes, but this new technology could at least supplement this, having a niche application in long term archiving. It is also a step in the direction of "optical data chips" as envisioned in certain Sci-Fi franchises.
Optical isn't dead, not by a longshot. There are industry players who are trying to kill it because "fighting piracy" matters more than putting out an actual product, but there have already been several commercially viable advances that only need a bit of promotion to shift the data storage market again.
@@warlockpaladin2261 Good points. I still use optical media for long term archival storage, with my most important files being written to two separate Blu-ray discs once a week, storing the media in cool, dry, fire-resistant cabinets, having progressed through Zip, CD and DVD. If this technology makes it to market at reasonable consumer prices, I'll convert all my media, knowing that it will take but a single disk to store everything that I have at this time.
"It is dead. No one is interested in nor manufactures optical media anymore. Long term archival is done exclusively using LTO tapes."
LTO storage is roughly $5 per TB.
So if 1.6 PB disks can be purchased for $5,000, then the customer will save $3,000 for 1.6 PB of storage. And instead of needing room to store 133 LTO tapes, you will need room for only a single 1.6 PB disk.
And if those 1.6 PB disks sell for $500, or $100, they will blow LTO tapes out of the water.
The only advantage that LTO media will have will be that they can be re-used.
And then there is Chia crypt-o mining, where the big expenses are the cost of countless large capacity hard drives, and the electricity to keep hundreds (or thousands) of hard drives spinning.
With 1.6 PB disks, a single disk can do the job of 80 20TB hard drives.
The cost of spinning a single 1.6 PB disk will cost 1/80th of spinning 80 20TB drives.
And then there is the cost of air conditioning, to keep the drives from over-heating.
80 hard drives will generate a fair amount of heat. And if you have 200 or more hard drives, you will have to keep costly air conditioning blowing on them 24/7/365. Whereas, two or three 1.6 PB drives will generate imperceptible heat, requiring no air conditioning.
The above is off the top of my head. I suspect that there will be many other use cases for archiving big data.
@@NoEgg4uThe scriptwriters and fact checkers made a critical mistake: the amount is 1.6 petabits, not petabytes, thus overstating the storage capacity by a factor of 8. This being said, the equivalent cost would be about $625/disc at the break even cost for the raw media, and your other numbers are generally fair, so while it wouldn't be as disruptive a technology at first, given how previous generations of optical technology progressed in reduced cost over time, if this comes to market, it could make a significant impact.
STILL, It would be great for archive storage. 125TB aslong as the media ware capable of very long term storage. and we had hardware to reload that storage 20 to 100 nyears in the future. that all it will be good for, and since the current state of the world is to firget the past , i can see it failing .