Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

IBM and FUJIFILM Create Equivalent of 220 TB Tape Cartridge

posted by martyb on Monday April 13 2015, @12:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the who-still-remembers-the-write-enable-ring? dept.

takyon writes:

IBM and FUJIFILM have demonstrated the equivalent of an LTO magnetic tape cartridge with a capacity of 220 terabytes.

According to IBM:

To achieve 123 billion bits per square inch, IBM researchers developed several new technologies, including:

  • A set of advanced servo control technologies that include a high bandwidth head actuator, a servo pattern and servo channel and a set of tape speed optimized H-infinity track follow controllers that together enable head positioning with an accuracy better than 6 nanometers. This enables a track density of 181,300 tracks per inch, a more than 39 fold increase over LTO6.
  • An enhanced write field head technology that enables the use of much finer barium ferrite (BaFe) particles.
  • Innovative signal-processing algorithms for the data channel, based on noise-predictive detection principles, enable reliable operation with an ultra narrow 90nm wide giant magnetoresistive (GMR) reader.

Rumors of tape's death are greatly exaggerated; LTO-6 tape pricing has fallen to $0.02 per GB, and a record 6.6 exabytes of tape were shipped in Q3 2014. The LTO roadmap calls for 48 terabyte LTO-10 tapes at some point in the future. Each new generation of LTO roughly doubles capacity, so a 200 TB LTO-12 tape may be slated for 2030.

In April 2014, Sony announced the development of 148 Gb/in2 tape that could enable a 185 TB tape cartridge. A month later, IBM and FUJIFILM announced that they had achieved the equivalent of an 85.9 Gb/in2, 154 TB tape. The new tape is based on the same NANOCUBIC™ technology.

Edit: Changed to reflect a tape cost of $8/TB compressed, $20/TB uncompressed.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
IBM and FUJIFILM Create Equivalent of 220 TB Tape Cartridge | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 14 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Monday April 13 2015, @12:29AM

    by isostatic (365) on Monday April 13 2015, @12:29AM (#169474) Journal

    I don't like LTO, not because I don't like tape (I love the WORM), but because of the marketing.

    Firstly theres the continuous advertising of compressed rates. I know the data I want to store, I know how much compression I can apply (zero), I don't want to look at the small print about theoretical compression if theroetical bits of data to get the uncompressed value. This can bleed into art les - is it 1c per gig compressed or uncompressed? Who knows.

    Then there's the issue of capacity. Except they threw that away with LtO6, moving from 1.5T to 2.5T. If they couldn't do 3T, why should I believe their roadmap?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @12:46AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday April 13 2015, @12:46AM (#169479) Journal

    Does it matter that they couldn't double it if they are going to multiply it by 2.56 for the next cartridge? Roadmaps aside, the product is either fit for the job or not. Also, they changed the compression to allow 2.5:1 with LTO-6 and future tapes rather than 2:1 with LTO-5.

    I agree on the marketing. It's as if they're saying you can't compress on other mediums. Luckily, the 154/185/220 TB figures in this article are uncompressed. So with a little marketing they become 385/463/550 TB.

    It looks like $0.008 is for compressed [lto.org]. So it's up to $0.02/GB for uncompressed. Not bad, but not as good.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @01:00AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday April 13 2015, @01:00AM (#169484) Journal

    the continuous advertising of compressed rates. I know the data I want to store, I know how much compression I can apply (zero), I don't want to look at the small print about theoretical compression

    Agreed!

    These compression numbers are just BULLSHIT. Worthless for most big files like video, images and audio which is usually compressed right at the time of recording.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @01:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @01:05AM (#169486)

      Its great for facebook, google, the NSA and everybody else making permanent records of all our communications.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @01:11AM

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday April 13 2015, @01:11AM (#169489) Journal

        HAMR/BPM hard drives, tapes, 3D NAND, post-NAND are going to reach for 100 TB - 1000 TB at least.

        Current RSA encrypted messages will be stored and broken using quantum computers.

        It can't be stopped.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:17AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:17AM (#169507)

          It can't be stopped.

          Yeah, if we actually make quantum computers and you're right about their capabilities.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:56AM

        by isostatic (365) on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:56AM (#170266) Journal

        For compressable data (text, phones) they can no doubt compress far better than a generic LTO compression.

        For already-compressed data (pictures, video -- the vast majority of information that needs storing), they wont' get any benefit from LTO.