Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Heavy Is a Petabyte?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything dept.

Data Storage 495

Jon Morgan writes "Whilst heaving around numerous data storage systems to sell (they weigh A LOT!), we got to wondering: How heavy is a Petabyte of data storage? Our best guess is 365KG, which is 6 million times lighter than in 1980! But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist psot? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629247)

How about the heaviest? Sum the weights of all HDDs plugged into Folding@Home.

How Sweaty is a Petabyte? (1, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629361)

I don't know. How long have you been petting it?

library of congress (5, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629249)

How heavy is a Library of Congress?

Re:library of congress (5, Informative)

troutinator (943529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629439)

According the Library of Congress' website they have approximately 32 million books. A bit of googling turned up that an average book weight about 12 ounces. So, 32 million * 12 ounces = 10,886,216.9 kilograms

Re:library of congress (5, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629621)

See, this is why I love slashdot. Ask a silly question and more often than not you'll get an answer.

Re:library of congress (3, Funny)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629689)

according to some website [techtarget.com] the LOC holds aprox. 10 terabytes worth of information.

which means that 102.4 LOC's would equal 1 petabyte.

10,886,216.9 * 102.4 = 1,114,748,610 kg

or aprox 2,457,600,000 lbs.

A lot heavier than... (4, Interesting)

marcus (1916) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629495)

and a lot bulkier than...

a few strands of DNA.

Re:library of congress (3, Interesting)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629609)

Asking a question like this is about as silly as asking how wide a year is. It's just not immediately obvious that this question makes no sense because it gets confused with the similar question 'what is the lightest device(s) capable of storing a petabyte of information.

Re:library of congress (5, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629733)

A year is two AU wide, about 300 million km.

Re:library of congress (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629747)

somebody hurry up and mod this guy insightful

Re:library of congress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629801)

Done

Re:library of congress (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629715)

7

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congress (5, Funny)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629253)

What are these Petabytes of which you speak? America measures data in units of Libraries of Congress.

Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre (2, Informative)

luton (1277998) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629341)

I've seen stats that all the books ever written by mankind add up to 50 PB of data storage. Presumable unZipped :)

Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629369)

And after you compress that, you get 42.

Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre (3, Funny)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629387)

And after you decompress it, you get 48 and a buttload of fragmented chains.

Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629507)

Is that a petabyte of lead, or a petabyte of feathers?

Re:Need conversion to units of Libraries of Congre (2, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629847)

I've seen stats that all the books ever written by mankind add up to 50 PB of data storage. Presumable unZipped :)

You've seen ESTIMATES.

MicroSD (5, Informative)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629255)

...weighs something like 300mg/card. That's 48GB/gram, or a bit over 20g/TB, or 20Kg/PB.

or 2.5" drives? (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629273)

I think that a 2.5 inch drive weighs less than half the weight of a 3.5 inch drive, so using twice as many of the 2.5" drives (available up to 1TB today) will reduce the weight.

Re:or 2.5" drives? (3, Informative)

Forge (2456) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629603)

Problem is those methods of dropping the weight, also increase the cost (TFA assesses both).

My problem with the assessment however, becomes even more glaringly obvious when you look at the micro SD proposal in the grandparent. If you are going to have a single SD card reader and plug these cards in as needed, the weight estimate is ok. If however all 1 PB of data must be immediately available to your software, the weight gos up dramatically.

In the case of 3.5" SATA HDDs, that weight/cost should include a storage system that renders all the data available at the same time. 140 Lbs for 48 Hard drives is reasonable. [sun.com]

Depending on your RAID Level, 1,500 Lbs per petabyte is closer to reality. 1,700 Lbs to 2,000 Lbs per petabyte if you add the rack to the equation.

BTW: Doing something sane, like RAID, instead of JBOD or RAID 0, will increase that mass somewhat.

Re:MicroSD (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629345)

But the smaller the chipsets, the larger - relatively - the packaging becomes. You can't just keep shrinking down the packaging, after all.. it would get far too flimsy.
So what you'd really need to weigh is the actual PCB with components, but sans all but a sliver of the bit that is the connector (the copper strips etched into the PCB to function as such).

Re:MicroSD (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629379)

Yeah, something solid-state, definitely. I was thinking SDHC 32GB cards... but those work out to a little under 64g/TB, so microSD is a lot lighter. You could even throw in one microSD-to-SD adapter and still be lighter. ;)

Work it out in your head (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629259)

What's the storage capacity of a human brain? We know how much THAT weighs, on average.

Re:Work it out in your head (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629411)

They probably want an error rate lower than 10%.

Re:Work it out in your head (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629703)

with an error rate of 0.1, two brains can give you perfect recovery given the right encoding (off the top of my head, a channel of binary bit flip probabiliy 0.1 is capable of a channel capacity of 0.53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy_channel_coding_theorem [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Work it out in your head (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629741)

Well, there you go. Get your left and right hemispheres working together properly and you're all set. Though the I/O channels are a bit slow...

Re:Work it out in your head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629435)

Good luck with that one. The estimates have been from megabytes to yottobytes.

Re:Work it out in your head (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629467)

If you get to the point where you achieve that level of efficiency in a storage product I will be sure to invest heavily in your company!

All in one rack (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629261)

A PB now fits in one rack also.

speichergurke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629287)

A lighter way? Of course there is [capped.tv] !

About the weight of a floppy (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629301)

LINE 10 PRINT "byte"

LINE 20 goto 10 REPEAT 8.881784197E-16

Then you wait for long time.....

Re:About the weight of a floppy (1)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629711)

The number of bits in a petabyte: 9*10^15. Age of the universe in seconds: 4*10^18. So, a room with 480 of these servers could hold that much data. My entire life, I've used the age of the universe in seconds as a number so huge, that we could just assume nothing would ever approach it.

The meaning of life: you contribute on the order of 1 bit towards the evolution of the human genome. Kinda makes me feel small.

Re:About the weight of a floppy (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629751)

Of course something approaches it, and surpasses it..
try micro seconds. That's, like, 1000 times more then the seconds in the universe~

Seriusly, if you captured all the data you experice throught your life, it would blow though several Petabytes of storage. Probably in a day.

Re:About the weight of a floppy (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629869)

But it's analog, which means it needs infinite resolution to process perfectly. And don't even get me started on quantum physics...

If it doesn't have to be in a single rack (1)

S7urm (126547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629307)

Then you could always farm out a petabyte into multiple units that would add up to it and then weight wouldn't be an issue (though dealing with multiple units would be)

Over 9000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629311)

Honestly, it is.

There is a way! (2, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629319)

It will take me a while but committing all that data to my memory won't add any measurable weight to me at all.

Re:There is a way! (2, Funny)

Palshife (60519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629819)

Right, but to answer the question, we still need to know your weight!

Cloud computing (5, Funny)

Sta7ic (819090) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629321)

Just stick the petabyte on the cloud! Clouds are as light as air!

(why yes, I am from Marketing, why do you ask?)

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (5, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629547)

Clouds are as light as air!

A common misconception, and just saying it on Slashdot doesn't make it true. Clouds weigh more than elephants - much more. In fact, you can learn the weight of clouds in elephant units here. [wsi.com]

Not only that, but clouds are usually darker than the air around them.

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629633)

For such a small article, that was a fascinating read. Thanks for the link.

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (3, Informative)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629647)

Air also weights more than elephants.
In fact, every square meter of the world has 2 elephants of air on top of them.

So "missconception" my ass.

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629661)

And if you took all the air in the world and weighted it you would get...?

being light is not the same as weight.

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629777)

Being pedantic is the wrong place to fail , like you did.

You failed to take the weight of air into account. Why, when you do that they are, in fact, lighter then air.
Otherwise they would fall down, and we call that 'rain'

Re:Cloud computing-Clouds in Elephant Units (2, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629841)

Thanks for nothing Peggy LeMone. Saying that a "typical cumulus cloud" weighs as much as 100 elephants is a meaningless statement without giving us a hint as to what the hell is the size of a "typical cumulus cloud". I bet we are talking about a hell of a lot greater volume than 100 elephants.

Here is an equally interesting piece of news for you: a pile of feathers is heavier than a tank! Of course it all depends on the size of the pile but who can bother with those little details.

Re:Cloud computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629695)

lim-0 (3, Insightful)

mattj452 (838570) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629333)

Since data storage is just one case of transmission channel (just sending it through time, not space) you can store the 6 Petabytes in a transmission. All you need to do is place one sender here, and one eh, let's say at the end of the Universe. As long as the data is being transmitted, it doesn't really weight anything. Yes silly question will get a silly answer :)

Re:lim-0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629417)

There's still E = M c^2, and the signal transmitted needs to carry some amount of energy...

Hell - terabytes were huge just 10 years ago (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629343)

I remember going to NAB in 1997 and some company had a terabyte system the size of a double door SubZero Fridge. [condodomain.com] I thought a terabyte would be an unimaginable amount of space, then. Now I have 1.8TB of drives on my desk, and 4 TB at my office...

RS

but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629357)

Whatever gave you that idea?

Re:but-electrons-don't-weigh-anything (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629591)

Electron [wikipedia.org]

Mass:
9.10938215(45)x10-31 kg
5.4857990943(23)x10-4 u
[1822.88850204(77)]-1 u
0.510998910(13) MeV/c2

Regardless of what that shit means in tangible terms, it at least means they weigh something, as far as we like to think anyways.

About 2 Kilos (5, Interesting)

BBCWatcher (900486) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629359)

Nobody knows exactly how much data the average human brain can hold, but one estimate [geocities.com] is 500 to 1000 TB. If the average adult human brain weighs about 1.3 or 1.4 Kilos [washington.edu] , then "about 2 Kilos" would hold 1 Petabyte.

Re:About 2 Kilos (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629527)

Is that normal brains or shrub brains [dailymail.co.uk] ?

Re:About 2 Kilos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629659)

Thanks a lot. My brain used to hold 500 to 1000TB, but clicking through to Geocities filled it with uselessness.

Re:About 2 Kilos (1)

Chicken_Kickers (1062164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629683)

I'm no expert in this field but I think the link that you provided had underestimated the human brain by many orders of magnitude. The human brain is not a hard drive. I don't think there is even any counterpart to it in current computer technology (maybe quantum computing?), whatever that is, so the comparison is meaningless. The brain doesn't just "store" information like a hard drive. It analyses, modifies, categorises, correlates, extrapolates, fills in missing blanks, filters and blanks out others and many other things that we are just beginning to discover. For example, a human child will quickly grasp the concept of doors and doorknobs, without any "programming" (I've had toddlers so believe me on this). This is why I think A.I. enthusiasts will ultimately fail.

Theoretically quite close to zero ... (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629367)

... if you transmit it into space encoded in waves of light. Of course, you have to travel faster than light to get ahead of the signal and read it again ...

Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ... (4, Funny)

RajivSLK (398494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629483)

Or you could just stick a mirror "out there". The light would quite conveniently come back at you. Or you could sneak around the other side of the universe and wait for the light...

Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629545)

There was a way discussed on Slashdot a while back on how to slow light to around 30 miles per hour.

Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ... (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629797)

I can't remember clearly, but did that way involve curved fiberoptic cabling?

Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629637)

Or you could tie the hard drives to a blimp. The mass is still there, but the weight is zero.

Re:Theoretically quite close to zero ... (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629835)

The weight is still the same. The hard drives are now exerting a force on the blimp. According to Mister Newton's third (3) law of motion, the blimp's buoyancy to keep itself up (it's own mass + the mass of hard drives) is equal to the force on the air in the opposite direction (downwards).

And it does matter what information is on the disks too. For example, a hard drive with Xubuntu installed is much lighter than one with Vista. If you don't believe be, get a weight scale and try it. Although a petabyte array would be a little hard to way in itself.

"But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte?" (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629385)

Sure. Store it in a WOM chip. They only weigh a few grams, hold literally unlimited data, and are really fast.

Re:"But is there a lighter way to store a Petabyte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629717)

I've been doing my daily backups to /dev/null for years. Really good compression. My colleagues keep pestering me to test the restore part, but management is on my side due to the low cost.

Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629391)

We use a modulated light beam that travels to a geo sync satellite and back. The data has darn little mass, or weight. Now the sat, (which amplifies and redrives the signal to the ground station), and the ground stations weighs a bit, but the data weighs nothing.

Minimum mass of a Petabyte (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629393)

Thinking about the decrease in mass of a petabyte got me thinking about Information Theory and the minimum energy required to store a bit. Or rather, to irreversibly manipulate one bit of information, which I think describes the act of writing to any kind of RAM (disk or otherwise). If I extrapolate that to also mean a mass whose rest energy is sufficient to manipulate a bit, that could give the theoretical minimum mass for a bit of storage. I don't actually know enough information theory to know that value, or even if the comparison from energy of information manipulation to mass of storage is valid, but it struck me as interesting and maybe somebody knows? What's the minimum mass of a petabyte?

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (0, Troll)

davek (18465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629457)

That's exactly what I've been wondering for years: how to connect computer software to physics equations. For example, it seems to me like a "full" drive seems to physically weigh more than a blank one, sort of like a full battery is noticeably heavier than an empty one. I thought that's what the article was about, but instead it was just a bunch of graphics about how many libraries-of-congress can fit in the titanic.

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629627)

For example, it seems to me like a "full" drive seems to physically weigh more than a blank one, sort of like a full battery is noticeably heavier than an empty one.

There's no way this minimum mass would be qualitatively noticeable even in a petabyte drive... and I don't think whether the drive is "full" makes a difference... the zeroes and ones on it are still information even if they don't represent 'used' portions of the disk.

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629815)

Alternatively, you could say the whole disk is "used" by the filesystem. Files rent space from it.

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (1)

wdsci (1204512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629763)

I made a blog post [ellipsix.net] about this sort of thing a while ago (posting this link had better not crash my server ;-)

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (4, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629773)

For example, it seems to me like a "full" drive seems to physically weigh more than a blank one, sort of like a full battery is noticeably heavier than an empty one.

Wrong on both counts. A "full" magnetic hard drive platter just has its magnetic domains aligned in a certain pattern.
Those domains are physically there whether they are used for data storage or not. So the weight will be indentical.

A battery does indeed become lighter when "emptied" - according to E = mc^2 and the energy that came out of it.
However, this is way, way, way under anything you would be able to notice.

An AA alkaline battery can deliver about 10000 Joules (http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Energy-tables.html [allaboutbatteries.com] ) - so
a discharged (= "empty") AA alkaline will weigh m = E/c^2 or roughly 10^-10 grams [google.com] less than a charged one.

That's 0.1 nanograms. About 100 human skin cells. No, you won't notice that.

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (1)

almightyon11 (1577457) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629727)

Oh thats an easy one... it's 0 - the mass of the least massive particle(s). The least energy is just as easy if you understand anything of quantum mechanics, not information theory: the least energy you can have a a quanta, so the least energy is Plank's Constant x 8 quadrillion (8 petabits), which is aproximately 8 eV s, which is somewhat a pretty number ;). However, another question arises: how do you store light? You sure need a medium for it to be usable, and the question is how much that medium weights... Moreover, I don't even kow if we currently have technology for storing light. First thing comes to mind are 2 paralel mirrors perfectly aligned, but there is thermal loss and imperfections loss there. Another crazy thing that comes to mind are black holes: then can trap light in 'orbit' around it... which is lossless - problem solved. Now I just need a black hole.

Re:Minimum mass of a Petabyte (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629865)

Oh thats an easy one... it's 0 - the mass of the least massive particle(s)

Except those massless particles would have an energy that is equivalent to a certain amount of rest energy aka mass. So, assuming massive particles (and not necessarily restricted to those known), what would be the minimum mass? It's the same answer as minimum energy, just different units.

The least energy is just as easy if you understand anything of quantum mechanics, not information theory: the least energy you can have a a quanta, so the least energy is Plank's Constant

That's not the same as the least amount of energy needed to manipulate a bit, which is the Landauer Limit. This is in fact an Information Theory question (though it and QM are closely related).

But... (-1, Offtopic)

pdragon04 (801577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629449)

... will it blend?

How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty HDD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629453)

Seriously, before I get flamed for this, think of it: how many inner-scohol kids would fall for this on an IQ-ish test? Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?

Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H (4, Funny)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629505)

Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?

Depends on the shoe they are wearing. On a boot, no, its a large amount, on sneakers, yes it might be a tiny amount.

Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629635)

the spelling is SOUL, and yes, a dead body does loose a small amount of mass immediately after death

Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H (3, Insightful)

Alyred (667815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629759)

Yeah, but that's called "voiding their bladder" or the even more unpleasant related process.

Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629833)

That's probably something to do with the relaxation of certain muscles. I plan on wearing adult-size pullups if I anticipate my imminent death.

Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629761)

What's funny is, back in "the day" people would do experiments like this. I don't recall any about souls, specifically, but according to a Nova episode I just watched, heat used to be considered a substance that flowed into and out of objects; in attempting to discover the weight of heat, they found out that it wasn't material at all, but rather motion. Seems obvious now, but someone had to figure it out at some point.

It depends.. (4, Funny)

Qwell (684661) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629469)

Are you storing mostly 1s or mostly 0s? Everybody knows they don't weigh the same.

Re:It depends.. (5, Funny)

IHawkMike (564552) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629489)

Here's an interesting discussion [microsoft.com] on the topic ;)

Re:It depends.. (1)

almightyon11 (1577457) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629771)

DOH everyone knows they don't wait the same, but you are forgetting about the magnetic effect. 1's are magnets pointed up and 0 pointed down. Thus 0s actually weight more because of earth's magnetic field. Aha.

Tapes? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629535)

What about TB tapes? I assume those would still weigh less than their Hard drive equivalents. For that matter, what about high density optical media? Does a 2TB Hard drive still weigh less than 40 Blu-Rays? I have no idea, but I'm guessing tap at least might still weigh less.

Compression (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629539)

Assuming you're not already compressing your data, this would be a good method to make it "lighter." A quick Google search has a test which shows gzip compressing things down to between 25% to 40% of their original size. This pretty much makes the data useless for mining or quick lookups, but it would drop the weight of storage media required, regardless of what you're using to store it. If it's just data that needs to be stored as a backup then it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Some other poster did it in 20Kg using MicroSD cards. Use the cards and compression and you've maybe dropped it down to 5Kg with an excellent compression ratio.

the 'king' is dead/a fink/what is a fair days pay? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629567)

that may be so, but you wouldn't be able to glean anything from this buyassed article written buy one of the 'new' wave of vapourious talknicians. phewww.

fuddles may not be the 'king' of anything any longer, butt he still exhibits those gangster 'qualities' that made him the envy of souless greedmongers everywhere.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090708/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_google_operating_system

Already answered (5, Funny)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629569)

This subject has already been discussed [microsoft.com] .

Re:Already answered (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28629843)

Man, how can they mod this crap up? (In response discussed in the forums)

If you have very large files, you can compress them and then compress the compressed file etc. until the files are down to 1 byte. That should make you laptop lighter than when you bought it! I use this trick all the time so that I can save my entire music collection on a 5-1/4" floppy (yeah, I found a use for them :)

Try using Micro SD cards instead (5, Insightful)

kroyd (29866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629601)

With 32gb cards weighting 0.5 grams one terabyte should require 32 cards, or 16 grams. 1024 terabytes should then weight 16384 grams, or a bit more than 16kg.

I don't think there is a storage media with higher density available commercially right now - and probably not until the 64GB microsd cards becomes available.

A bit lighter I would think (1)

laing (303349) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629613)

You can buy a 16GB microSDHC which weighs 0.05oz (1.4g). You would need 62,500 of them to make a petabyte. That comes to a total of just 87.5kg. Of course this does not include the interface needed to access them.

Mass!=Weight (1, Insightful)

halprin (965354) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629617)

Since when was a Kilogram a unit of weight?

Re:Mass!=Weight (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629725)

Since the day that the average joe shapes the language and not a scientist.

Personally, I couldn't care less.

Re:Mass!=Weight (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629739)

Fine, it's 365 KG times the gravitational acceleration where it is present. Around 3600 Newtons. Happy? :)

Re:Mass!=Weight (2, Insightful)

nsayer (86181) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629745)

Since they started making scales calibrated in kg instead of Newtons.

Earth or Alien (1)

Parrot Mac (1460465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629641)

I'm guessing that we are measuring this earth standard units because we could just store it in space. Or just put it underwater...

Such questions... (1)

SebaSOFT (859957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629651)

Is there a better way to waste your time?

And her I thought a petabyte was... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629769)

what you call it when you pet your pet and they byte you.

What kind of shop do you work for ... (1)

winomonkey (983062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629785)

where you sit around dealing with heavy petting all day? And don't you just think that a lighter version of it would just be annoying? Maybe even leading to the infamous BBOD? Or maybe I am just reading this wrong ...

temperature (1)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28629789)

Doesn't that depend on the temparature?

Stephan

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?