• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wen said the team will continue to improve the speed and reduce the energy needed to write and read data from the disk.

    literally the last paragraph, no read/write speeds… ive seen a lot of these nanoscale data-density ‘breakthroughs’ but the read/write costs are so high/slow it never comes to market. the optical disk format gives me a little hope

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I imagine the idea here would be for long term storage, so you’d still use faster media day to day, and then dump things there as an archive.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        sure, but if your write speed is 1gb/day in your new nanoscale thing, its not going to work at scale.

        thats why i was looking for any write speed on this new tech, and i havent found it yet.

        • MinekPo1 [it/she]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago
          autistic complaining

          honestly I don’t even know how to interpret ~11.5 μg b/s (micro gram bits per second).

          Seriously I get not liking capital letters , but like ESPECIALLY in this case (as ~11.5 b/s and ~11.5 B/s are about as reasonable) , capitalize your units ! also differentiate between GiB (gigi bits) and GB (giga bits).

          to be fair , because g and b are not separated by a space , “×” or “•” , g should be interpreted as a prefix , according to SI rules , but its not something most people know about and g is not a valid SI prefix .

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah that’s true, there’s a minimum write speed you have to achieve if it’s going to be at all useful. And to be fair, a lot of this tech never hits the market because it’s hard to scale from lab to production, or just not cost effective enough to produce at scale. Still good to see people researching this stuff though.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        its the write speeds that always fail… although i recall one of these where the multiple reading lasers were too expensive and they abandoned the method

    • SteveTech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      IEEE Spectrum says this:

      Currently, he says, the new discs have a writing speed of about 100 milliseconds and an energy consumption of microjoules to millijoules.

      Idk if that means the full 200TB in 100ms, or a bit per 100ms, but there is a number out there I suppose.