• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      At 10MB/s it’d take you 416 days if constant writes to fill it up.

      EXTREMELY slow archival.

      At least for now, till it gets better

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If you’re not creating more than 800GB a day of new data you can just let it run with a faster drive as a buffer in front of it.

        Or get 10 of them and run them in parallel. Maybe get 11 and throw in a bit of parity, just in case bitrot surfaces after the first 1000 years or something.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Let’s say I want to preserve my computer disks when I do a major change (i.e. 10TB worth of NAS or just 4TB worth of workstation) or when I sell it or just throw it away. What do I do? Time is not essential. Or as others said, store photos and other large files. It’s for archival, not for backup purposes.

  • RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The drives are write-once media — data cannot be erased or rewritten once stored

    I could find a use for these. My pacman package cache maybe.

  • Jesusaurus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Read and single write capability is an interesting proposition for archival purposes. 8-10MB/s write and 50-200MB/s read speeds

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I do photography, and I like to keep the original RAW photos from the camera. So, this sort of thing would be perfect for me. I don’t really need fast write access, since I just want to back the photos up and it’s not time sensitive.

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The data is burned into a piece of glass with a laser. It doesn’t use a dye to store data like a CD-R. I doubt bit rot would be much of an issue. With that much capacity, you could use lots of forward error correction though.

      • gnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What form would that take? They seem to indicate lifetime on the centuries, similar to expectations for M-DISC.

        • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Gonna guess glass deformation over time is going to come into play (really (like millennia) old windows get thicker at the bottom), probably why the quartz version of this is speculated to be good for millions of years. And of course breakage. The drives will fail first.

          Sucks to be Microslop sitting on this for years and years and China comes along and eats your lunch. Ha Ha.

          Hopefully a story soon to be repeated with RAM and then chips, about time there was real competition.

            • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Yeah, I’ve heard that and I’ve seen pictures of examples, dunno. Personally, anything beyond a century is irrelevant anyway.

              • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                The window panes were cut from irregular sheets, and they were simply installed with the thicker part at the bottom, for structural integrity.

                It was a manufacturing quirk.

          • untorquer@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Spin them once daily or weekly. As long as they’re balanced that should randomize the gravity vector.

            It’s also almost certainly a different composition than century old glass panes made for buildings. So the material itself might mitigate this issue

        • Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Like the other user mentioned, glass warping/deformation. Although I’d reckon kinetic impacts, tremors, or actual drive failure would occur first (the real question is what are the maximum tolerances before a read/write fails or ends in data corruption).

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 hours ago

    More bytes is more bytes. Flood the market until big AI firms can’t afford to monopolize the hardware anymore and finally collapse so we real people can finally compute again.

    • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      These would be useless for AI given the high write requirements inherent to any form of ‘AI’ in use today; but data centers would absolute eat these up for low-write CDN usage, i.e. netflix which only updates their catalogue once every few days but needs high read speeds for multiple users. So we’d still be competing with data centers for them, but luckily just much fewer.

      It would make (assuming it can fit in a standard 3.5" bay) petabyte+ home data servers pretty trivial to set up though which is pretty neat. 4k Jellyfin data hoarders should rejoice.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Like I said, more bytes is more bytes. Even if it’s a niche use case, that takes pressure off of other use cases.