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.
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.
Related Stories
IBM has claimed its fifth-in-succession world tape density record with a 330TB raw capacity technology using Sony tape media tech.
Back in April, 2015 IBM and Fujitsu demonstrated a 123 billion bits/in2 220TB tape using so-called Nanocubic technology and barium ferrite tape media.
This time around, IBM's tape drive researchers are working with Sony Storage Media Solutions and its sputtered media. Engineering developments have enabled an areal density of 201Gb/in2.
Their technology includes:
- New signal-processing algorithms for the data channel, based on noise-predictive detection principles, enabling reliable operation at a linear density of 818,000 bits per inch with an ultra-narrow 48nm-wide tunnelling magneto-resistive (TMR) reader.
- A set of combined advanced servo control technologies that enable head positioning with an accuracy of better than 7 nanometres.
- Use of a 48nm-wide TMR hard disk drive read head, which enables a track density of 246,200 tracks per inch, a 13-fold increase over the TS1155 tape drive.
- New low-friction tape head technology that permits use of very smooth tape media.
IBM and Sony have developed magnetic tape that can store 201 gigabits per square inch, enabling the creation of a 330 TB (uncompressed) tape cartridge:
The Linear Tape-Open standard will be extended by another two generations, increasing raw/uncompressed capacity from LTO-8's 12 TB to 192 TB on an LTO-12 tape:
The LTO Program Technology Provider Companies (TPCs), Hewlett Packard Enterprise, IBM and Quantum, announced the specifications of the latest LTO Ultrium format, generation 8, which is now available for licensing by media manufacturers.
The LTO Program also released a new LTO technology roadmap, detailing specifications up to twelve (12) generations of tape technology, extending the total capacity of data held on one LTO Ultrium generation 12 tape cartridge to 480TB – an increase of 32 times the capacity of current-generation 7 cartridges.
The new LTO generation 8 specifications are designed to double the tape cartridge capacity from the previous LTO generation 7, with customers now being able to store up to 30TB per cartridge when compressed. In an effort to push the innovation boundaries of tape technology going forward, the current LTO format required a recording technology transition that supports capacity growth for future LTO generations. To address this technological shift and maintain affordability in times of extreme data growth, the latest LTO generation 8 specifications are intended to be only backwards compatible with LTO generation 7 cartridges.
Despite records like 220-330 TB uncompressed in the laboratory, these 100+ TB capacities won't be available for a while:
[Spectra Logic's] CEO and founder, Nathan Thompson, said: "Spectra foresees the availability of LTO-9 at 24TB per tape cartridge in two years; LTO-10 at 48TB in four years; LTO-11 at 96TB in six or seven years; and LTO-12 at 190+TB in eight to nine years. I firmly believe that no other commercial data storage technology available now or on the horizon, will keep pace with or fulfill the world's increasing demand for cost-effective, long-term data storage like tape technology."
Also at IT Jungle.
Previously: IBM and FUJIFILM Create Equivalent of 220 TB Tape Cartridge
LTO Tape Sales Remain Steady
IBM Claims Densest Tape Storage Record (330 TB)
(Score: 5, Informative) by isostatic on Monday April 13 2015, @12:29AM
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?
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @12:46AM
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 $0.02/GB for uncompressed. Not bad, but not as good.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @01:00AM
Agreed!
These compression numbers are just BULLSHIT. Worthless for most big files like video, images and audio which is usually compressed right at the time of recording.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @01:05AM
Its great for facebook, google, the NSA and everybody else making permanent records of all our communications.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @01:11AM
HAMR/BPM hard drives, tapes, 3D NAND, post-NAND are going to reach for 100 TB - 1000 TB at least.
Current RSA encrypted messages will be stored and broken using quantum computers.
It can't be stopped.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:17AM
It can't be stopped.
Yeah, if we actually make quantum computers and you're right about their capabilities.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:56AM
For compressable data (text, phones) they can no doubt compress far better than a generic LTO compression.
For already-compressed data (pictures, video -- the vast majority of information that needs storing), they wont' get any benefit from LTO.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @12:31AM
Alright so what price will the read/write unit go for? and tapes? and can a 6 nm head positioning be reliable? at that distance funny things happens in physics! 0.01 US$/GByte sounds really nice. 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.
And what about the price and reliability for those drives with now older technology?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @12:51AM
I've changed it to 0.02 US$/GByte uncompressed. It is 0.008 US$/GByte using 2.5:1 compression to turn a 2.5 TB LTO-6 uncompressed tape into a 6.25 TB LTO-6 compressed tape. Thanks, marketeers.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday April 13 2015, @03:10AM
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.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Monday April 13 2015, @04:27AM
Bzzzzzt. We have a loser.
$4,400.00 for one 220 TB tape (that's what $20.00/TB works out to)? Are you serious?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @06:23AM
$50 is the cost of an LTO-6 tape in 2015.
$4400 is not the cost of a 220 TB in 20XX.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Monday April 13 2015, @10:51AM
Then why does TFS say "Edit: Changed to reflect a tape cost of $8/TB compressed, $20/TB uncompressed."?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday April 13 2015, @10:56AM
That's for LTO-6. This is a lab demo, you can't buy a 220 TB tape anywhere and likely won't for another decade.
When 100-300 TB tapes become available, they will be much cheaper than $20/TB. Same as hard drives, NAND, etc. of that size.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]