> who cares if it can store an exabyte if it takes all month to read it
To be fair, if I'm reading an exabyte in a month, my hardware's pushing >3 Tbps, which I'd be very happy with.
To be fair, if I'm reading an exabyte in a month, my hardware's pushing >3 Tbps, which I'd be very happy with.
If you have great cost per byte but your bandwidth per byte is bad enough that the price per byte doesn't make up for it then you have an issue.
They've started making hard drives with multiple heads because of this issue, they increased density to the point where it's not useful to continue adding density if it doesn't come with more bandwdith.
Or maybe RAEND
Massive storage that takes a month to fully read is acceptable in a wide variety of use cases. If it's cheaper than hard drives it'll get a huge amount of users.
Reading a floppy disk took around 30 secs for example. A whole CD took 5 mins. My whole 1TB SSD takes 10 mins.
Perhaps the needs for read/write speed are bounded (before processor, etc. becomes the limiting factor), while more capacity is only limited by price. Or maybe increasing density of storage inherently means a tradeoff with I/O speed (AFAIK, NAND flash needs to rewrite lots of data just to make a single write? Atom-scale interactions have side effects)
But I 100% agree with your main point about possibility vs productionisation.