120 petabytes: IBM building largest data storage array ever

This is a hot contender for "most vague article, ever"

- We don't know who orderd it [insert speculation about some companies].
- We don't what it's for [insert speculation about some uses].
- And it's "likely to be followed by even larger systems" [insert speculation that there may be future technologies in the future...Duh].

Result: I don't know what I'm supposed to do with an article like that [insert speculation about the aptitude of the author for journalism].

Information retrieval:
IBM - and not - will be building the largest data storage system ever. May other companies jostle for the largest share of media hype and personality cult, IBM delivers.
Non-bloated PR as a pleasant touch of sobriety.

The singularity has already happened and needs the storage and speed increase to wipe us out.this is evident with all the other "unexplainable" happenings within computer controlled happenings such as speed of light trading in the stock market.this accounts for the unknowns above.

this is information technology evolution. HD surveillance cameras will fill an 1TB disk in hours. supercomputers need superdata capacity storage. 128bit processors will happen also in the future.

The information stored in a 100-trillion-synapse brain?
Mapping of a persons brain after death could lead to immortality.

Largest porn collection ever.

Mapping of a persons brain after death could lead to immortality.

Making a (working) copy still means that the (biological) original dies at some point. So from the point of view of the individual copied he hasn't gained anything.

Yes, this new system could hold all the information in the library of congress several thousand times over, or about 1/8 of all the porn on the internet.

Mapping of a persons brain after death could lead to immortality.

Making a (working) copy still means that the (biological) original dies at some point. So from the point of view of the individual copied he hasn't gained anything.

I doubt a "working" model is possible using current technology. However in another decade or so a digital version might work containing all the memories and thoughts of the deceased. Further ahead, nano technology may be able to reproduce the brain and body using this saved data and stored DNA. Cryogenics for the digital age.

...allowing for the storage of 120 petabytes of data (120 million gigabytes)

Correct me if I am wrong, but 1Petabyte is 1024Gigabyte.
So, 120PB = 120 * 1024GB which equals only 122,880 GigaBytes

Where did the author get 120 million? That's a thousand times more! This article has poor quality written all over it.

1Petabyte is 1024Gigabyte

No. 1 terabyte is 1000 gigabytes. 1 petabyte is indeed a million gigabytes.

(As an aside: If you go by powers of two then it's not gigabytes (GB), terabytes (TB), etc. but gibibytes, tebibytes, ... and get the abbreviations GiB, TiB, etc. )

The only time 1024 comes into it is when you list the actual bytes.
1024 bytes = 1kB
So when you're converting from kB to MB to GB and wherever from there, it's all 1 to 1.
But when you go back down to bytes, you need to add the extra 24 bytes for each kB.
So, 1PB = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000kB = 1,024,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes

In actuality, it's all translating down to bytes, and to binary bits from there. the kB, MB, GB TB, PB, etc., are just for our convenience.

The only time 1024 comes into it is when you list the actual bytes.
1024 bytes = 1kB
So when you're converting from kB to MB to GB and wherever from there, it's all 1 to 1.
But when you go back down to bytes, you need to add the extra 24 bytes for each kB.
So, 1PB = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000kB = 1,024,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes

False.

Binary values are powers of 2. 2^10 = 1k, 2^20 = 1m... 2^20 = 1024 * 1024... not 1024 * 1000...

kilo = 2^10
mega = 2^20
giga = 2^30
tera = 2^40
peta = 2^50

I often wonder where people get their information...

The reason this is done is for computational efficiency. A division/multiplication by 1024 is a simple 10 bit left/right shift that can be done in hardware using a barrel shifter. A division/multiplication by 1000 takes much longer to accomplish by the processor and is done in a sequence of several steps.

kilo = 2^10
mega = 2^20
giga = 2^30
tera = 2^40
peta = 2^50

kilo literally means "a thousand" (not 2^10). It's derived from a greek word.

("mega" just means "big", but in SI convention mega, giga, etc. are reserved for powers of ten, not two)

kilo = 2^10
mega = 2^20
giga = 2^30
tera = 2^40
peta = 2^50

kilo literally means "a thousand" (not 2^10). It's derived from a greek word.

("mega" just means "big", but in SI convention mega, giga, etc. are reserved for powers of ten, not two)

You're dropping context... I was not giving a lesson on etymology.

Manufacturers use the powers of ten for their product (otherwise they'd have to give you more memory for the same label). So you can bet that these terabyte drives mentioned in the article do not contain 2^20 bytes but merely 10^12 bytes each.

Manufacturers use the powers of ten for their product (otherwise they'd have to give you more memory for the same label). So you can bet that these terabyte drives mentioned in the article do not contain 2^20 bytes but merely 10^12 bytes each.

I wouldn't be surprised... but engineers don't have that "ripping off the customer" bias.

The reason this is done is for computational efficiency. A division/multiplication by 1024 is a simple 10 bit left/right shift that can be done in hardware using a barrel shifter. A division/multiplication by 1000 takes much longer to accomplish by the processor and is done in a sequence of several steps.

Actually, it's because 1024 is divisble by eight, whereas 1000 is not. Eight bits in a byte... Don't put more into it than there actually is.

I wouldn't be surprised... but engineers don't have that "ripping off the customer" bias.

Unfortunately (we) engineers aren't the ones who decide stuff like that. I've seen it often enough. Giving the customer maximum benefit is NEVER a winning strategy in a company - making maximum profit is

(Just look at Apple. They have perfected the sell-overpriced-junk-through-media-hype marketing ploy. Their trinkets are fully 60% profit and the specs are abominable compared to other products on the market. )

This is a hot contender for "most vague article, ever"

- We don't know who orderd it [insert speculation about some companies].
- We don't what it's for [insert speculation about some uses].
- And it's "likely to be followed by even larger systems" [insert speculation that there may be future technologies in the future...Duh].

Result: I don't know what I'm supposed to do with an article like that [insert speculation about the aptitude of the author for journalism].

Hey auntie did you check the link at the end of the article, or did you just jump at the chance to dis somebody? [insert speculation about the nature of aunties gut bile and lack of energy for exploring references]

Yes, I did check it, and that article actually has some substance - my gripe was that the type of 'writeup' that the physorg editor did here is completely useless. A naked link would have been equally informative.

Thanks for correcting me!
I forgot there's Tera after Giga and before Peta!

The reason this is done is for computational efficiency. A division/multiplication by 1024 is a simple 10 bit left/right shift that can be done in hardware using a barrel shifter. A division/multiplication by 1000 takes much longer to accomplish by the processor and is done in a sequence of several steps.

Actually, it's because 1024 is divisble by eight, whereas 1000 is not. Eight bits in a byte... Don't put more into it than there actually is.

And why are there 8 bits in a byte instead of, say, 10?... because it is a binary power of two.

The answer is that 1024 is a power of 2, and 1000 is not... as I said.

I'm a software and firmware engineer with 15 years of experience.