StillBored a day ago | next |

! So, they have a 72TB tape and drive integrated into something not much larger than a 3.5" disk drive that they are planning to shrink to a 3.5" disk drive enclosure?

So basically they just leapfrogged LTO9 without a drive? I mean if these things are anywhere close to the price of actual tape, its a gonner.

But it also shows just how far behind the LTO consortium has allowed tape to get while milking the market by providing just slightly better density/price profiles to HDDs in a rack.

knowitnone a day ago | prev |

"which combines the performance of SSDs with the capacity of tape" more BS coming out of China

082349872349872 18 hours ago | root | parent |

The amount of BS could range from none to complete; it all depends upon your access pattern.

(my workload has heavy recent locality, so I could probably even live with Jim Gray's predicted combination of main memory + tape; where the SSD buffer would come in handy during reboots)

What does JNG's five-minute rule suggest for lifetimes and xfer sizes in 2024?

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~natassa/courses/15-721/papers/gray.p... (1997)

EDIT:

with an SSD at 40k iops @ 100 USD and 4k pages:

  (256 pages/MB) / (40000 io/s) * (100 USD) / (1e-6 USD/MB) ~= 1 week / io
Randomly Accessed Objects => 1 week rule

assuming sequential b/W at 6 GB/sec:

  (1 / 6000 MB/sec) * (100 USD) / (1e-6 USD/MB) ~= 5 hours
Sequentially Accessed Objects => 5 hour rule

I'll let someone else do the index calcs, but clearly we're no longer in a world where secondary swap makes any sense during typical user process lifetimes.