Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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

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 NANOCUBICâ„¢ 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This discussion has been archived.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.
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: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 13 2015, @03:10AM

    by isostatic (365) on Monday April 13 2015, @03:10AM (#169527) Journal

    Provided that actually translates into a price when drive unit and tape is accounted for. And you want to make sure there's a backup drive unit in case the first one goes bad. And a second source for tapes to keep your unit usable.

    Drive cost is negligable. Say you want to store at 2.5T per tape.

    I'm assuming now $50 per tape, and $2k for a drive. So say you get 4 drives, $8k. That's 15% of the total cost for a small installation, and under 1% for a large one.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2