Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

SKA Telescope To Provide a Billion PCs Worth of Processing

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the scaling-up-scalability dept.

186

Sharky2009 writes "IBM is researching an exaflop machine with the processing power of about one billion PCs. The machine will be used to help process the Exabyte of data per day expected to flow off the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope project. The company is also researching solid state storage technology called 'racetrack memory' which is much faster and denser than flash and may hold the secret to storing the data from the SKA. The story also says that the SKA is unlikely to use grid computing or a cloud-based approach to processing the telescope data due to challenge in transferring so much data (about one thousand million 1Gb memory sticks each day)."

cancel ×

186 comments

New iPhone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471057)

I just got an iphone and it has a system folder called /gprn. What is that anyway?

Re:New iPhone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471397)

It means you're gay. Telling you what you already know, useful, huh?!

thousand million? (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471061)

(about one thousand million 1Gb memory sticks each day)

Could we get that in LoC's? Also, could we stick to the standard "one million thousands" unit, please?

Re:thousand million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471105)

0 LoCs... it's telescope data dummy

Re:thousand million? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471123)

50000 LoCs

Re:thousand million? (2, Funny)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471241)

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/how_big.htm [jamesshuggins.com]

So roughly 20 million Library of Congresses (20mm LoC)

Re:thousand million? (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471381)

could we please stick to serious measures of information within the field of IT instead of silly printer paper units, how many station wagons full of 9 track tape is that?

Re:thousand million? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471559)

Which kind of station wagon? One the size of a Chevrolet Nomad or Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser or a small one like the Honda Fit? (If you know what 9 track tape is, then you know it's a relevant question.)

Re:thousand million? (2, Informative)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471605)

It's be roughly 105,882,352,941,176,470,588 discs.

They are about 10.5 in in diameter and .5 in thick but encased for storage probably 12*1 which would be about 12 tapes per cubic foot

The Volvo V70 has about 72 cubic feet of free space

About 122,549,019,607,843,137 Volvo V70 Station Wagons... or one making the trip 122,549,019,607,843,137 times *shrug*

Re:thousand million? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471697)

You'd need 58.82 million 9-track tapes. What are the dimensions of a 9 track tape, and what type of station wagon? I'm assuming 1964 vintage? Assuming 100 tapes per car, that's 5.8 million station wagons, or 1000 tapes per car, that's 588,000 station wagons. Are we including roof rack space?

Re:thousand million? (1)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471917)

How did you get 58.2 Mil? 1,000,000,000,000,000,000Gb/170Mb, my good sir. Or about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000/170

Re:thousand million? (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471271)

Maybe they could benefit from South African data transfer technology. [slashdot.org]

Re:thousand million? (0)

Phoenixlol (1549649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471391)

If anyone is interested, and doesn't know, it's called a quintillion [jimloy.com] .

Re:thousand million? (4, Informative)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471437)

A thousand million is probably the most correct term for international understanding.

There is no world standard term for one thousand million. In the US and most of the UK we call it a "billion", but in several countries a billion means a million million. In these countries, a thousand million is usually called "a thousand million" or a "milliard", but I've never seen "a million thousand".

Re:thousand million? (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471499)

The long rule is stupid, if you are going to use units as big as a million million just use scientific notation.

Re:thousand million? (5, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471513)

Here's the way it works:

In the US and the UK, the number is officially called "billion." In India, it's called "100 Crore." Australia officially has no idea how they do their numbers, and Canada doesn't even know what language it speaks. There are no other English-speaking countries of consequence.

Therefore, "billion" is the most acceptable term for international English-language writing.

Re:thousand million? (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471627)

I guess you're joking, but in Canada one thousand million is definitely one billion, in english. It is not in french (it is a millard), but in that case you'd write the rest of the article in french too.

Re:thousand million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471649)

I prefer to call it "ten thousand ten thousand ten".

Re:thousand million? (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471821)

Why not Just say 1E9 or even 1 * 10^9 for "a thousand million". If someone has a problem with understanding that, then what does he do on this site anyways? ^^
(Ok, actually everybody had this at school, so I can expect this to be a normal term, used on national television. But noo, they *could* lose the total retards by not using it. We can't have that!! :/)

Re:thousand million? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471843)

You know they found a solution for that. It's called scientific or exponential notation. And once you learn it, it's quite simple - you just add the specified number of zero's or move the comma the correct number of times.

Re:thousand million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471729)

LoC is now loner used. New standard is pigeons per hour.

Re:thousand million? Alternative storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471755)

For those of us that can't afford a 1 Exabyte or 1,000 Pedabyte drives here is the alternative breakdown:

- Standard 4.7GB DVD Disks: 212,765,957.45
- Standard 750MB CD-ROM Disks: 1,333,333,333.33
- Standard 1.44 Floppy Disks: 694,444,444,444.44

Re:thousand million? Alternative storage (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471939)

So if I wanted to crunch some of this data on my old Apple //e how many of the 143k 5.25" floppy disks would I need? When I try the math in Visicalc all I get is #err

Re:thousand million? (1)

shadowblaster (1565487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471863)

What's wrong with calling it one Exabyte?
This is slashdot after all.

There exists only one more question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471063)

Can it run Crysis?

Re:There exists only one more question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471255)

Nope. But we might be toast.

IBM PC (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471067)

So is that the processing power of one billion IBM PC 5150s?

Lenovo-compatible (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29472055)

So is that the processing power of one billion IBM PC 5150s?

IBM hasn't made PCs since 2005, when it sold its personal computing division to Lenovo. So it would be 1e9 of whatever computer Lenovo is selling.

SKA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471117)

Fucking rude boys.

Re:SKA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471175)

Crap! Beaten to it!

Ska? (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471171)

Let's hear it for Reel Big Fish and the Pietasters! Is there a Reggae telescope?

Re:Ska? (4, Funny)

colmore (56499) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471221)

Hey, IBM, you dropped your telescope.

Someone should pick it up, pick it up, pick it up, pick it up.

Re:Ska? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471829)

IBM's next version is going to be split into several separate telescopes. When complete they are to be launched into orbit, and dubbed the Skatalites.

No Doubt that their next plan would be a test run of the Planet Smashers; like Operation Ivy, but on an interstellar scale.
They hope to find a way to stop the Forces of Evil, with their top priority in ensuring that we're safe against an invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
Some are calling it Sublime Madness, but they're mostly Slackers who speak out Against All Authority.
They say it would be Bad Manners to make any planets that have alien Pioneers go Bim-Skala-Bim, and are always looking for ways to save the Ethiopians living on the planet Marclar.

Re:Ska? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471231)

Reel big fish? Fuck that shit. Skankin Pickle! RIP Lynette.

Re:Ska? (1)

HalfNormalForm (849933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471351)

These are clearly 4th wave ska telescopes, so RBF and the Pietasters are obsolete technology.

Re:Ska? (1)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471701)

The telescope will send data via a dual-frequency acoustic transmission system.

A "two-tone" system, if you will.

What? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471203)

SKA telescope? Madness!

since when did slashdot provide BS units? (5, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471213)

Seriously, how is a PC a unit of processing ability? And one thousand million GB sticks is an Exabyte (hence the name). Perhaps you can just say 10^18 bytes. This is slashdot, not msnbc.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471323)

Seriously, so much for news for nerds. Perhaps kdawson stole scuttlemonkey's credentials.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471329)

Hence the name? I for one can't see the connection.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471983)

concur, BS units are for measuring legislative accomplishment in a government.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (4, Insightful)

clem.dickey (102292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471349)

Original article also compares a Peta of floating ops per *second* to an Exa of byte "processing and storing" per *day.* Journalism profs should save that article for class discussion.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471929)

Journalism profs should save that article for class discussion.

Yeah and they'll point at this article and say "See this? This is how you do it. Remember that your target audience has no idea what these egg-heads are saying, so it helps if you don't either. You can't spell 'dumbed down' without 'dumb'!"

Petaflops vs. exabytes per day (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29472115)

Original article also compares a Peta of floating ops per *second* to an Exa of byte "processing and storing" per *day.* Journalism profs should save that article for class discussion.

If a system uses one petaflops to process one exabyte per day, that's the same as saying it takes roughly 86,400 floating ops to process each 1000 bytes of data. That sounds not unreasonable.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (4, Funny)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471363)

Seriously, how is a PC a unit of processing ability? And one thousand million GB sticks is an Exabyte (hence the name). Perhaps you can just say 10^18 bytes. This is slashdot, not msnbc.

Some of us went and got an MBA; upon which, it knocked tens of points off of our IQ.

Now, 10 carrots 18? 18 what? Rabbits?

It should read 10 carrots and 18 rabbits!

And people say I'm stewped!

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471449)

Seriously, how is a PC a unit of processing ability? And one thousand million GB sticks is an Exabyte (hence the name). Perhaps you can just say 10^18 bytes. This is slashdot, not msnbc.

Or even a billion GB for those of us not in the Commonwealth. Of course, not everyone knows how big an exabyte is, but a billion 1 GB memory sticks is a pretty good visualization.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471529)

Only US English uses billion to mean "1,000,000,000". In most other languages that use the word billion it means "1,000,000,000,000".

And there are a hell of a lot more outside the Commonwealth than there are in the US.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471671)

Since the US and modern British English define the English language, only short scale countries need be taken into account, not long scale, so........... since most folks group by threes, take the number of groups after the first comma, subtract 1. THAT number plus the suffix -lion will give you the name of the number ..... this number has 3 groups after the first comma (3-1=2, 2=bi there for billion) 4 groups (4-1=3, 3=tri therefore trillion), 5 groups (5-1=4, 4=quad therefore quadrillion) . Its crude, but it works as a mnemonic device

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471845)

no, it mostly means 1e9.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (3, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471469)

He's just giving you a good comparison so you can picture an equivalent system using everyday objects. Kind of like how instead of just saying "Bob is tall", you should use strong imagery like "Bob is as tall as a 6-foot-4-inch tall tree"

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471515)

He's just giving you a good comparison so you can picture an equivalent system using everyday objects. Kind of like how instead of just saying "Bob is tall", you should use strong imagery like "Bob is as tall as a 6-foot-4-inch tall tree"

That doesn't help. How tall is a 6-foot-4-inch tall tree?

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (2, Funny)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 4 years ago | (#29472173)

6 feet and 4 inches.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471489)

Perhaps you can just say 10^18 bytes. This is slashdot, not msnbc

Right, so how many tenths of a gagillion is that?

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

fireball84513 (1632561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471637)

well, nowadays, anyone who likes to look things up on wikipedia can call themselves a nerd.

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471781)

But your missing the point.. It was a thousand million 1GB memory sticks.

if you were a true geek, you would have first asked if that was a 1 GB memory stick, or a 1GiB of capacity, then you would of asked how they were formatting the drives, to see how much usable space their really would be. When your talking about a thousand million of them.. the difference between 1024 and 1000 used in counting, plus the loss of area for formatting and such really ads up!

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471943)

But your missing the point.. It was a thousand million 1GB memory sticks.

if you were a true geek, you would have first asked if that was a 1 GB memory stick, or a 1GiB of capacity, then you would of asked how they were formatting the drives, to see how much usable space their really would be. When your talking about a thousand million of them.. the difference between 1024 and 1000 used in counting, plus the loss of area for formatting and such really ads up!

It's you're, have, there, and you're. Are you trying to lose credibility?

Re:since when did slashdot provide BS units? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29472031)

if you were a true geek, you would have first asked if that was a 1 GB memory stick, or a 1GiB of capacity,

If you used that GiB thing much more, I'll have to stab you in the neck.

/real geek

SKA? (0, Offtopic)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471215)

Powered by Rude boys. They're dropping those packets so you can pickit up, pickit up, pickit up.

one thousand million 1Gb memory sticks (1)

Ivan Stepaniuk (1569563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471229)

I wonder how many football fields could you cover with that.

One billion, but no Grid.. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471247)

From TFA:

âoeIn the last year or two IBM has built machines in the order of a petaflop and in the last couple of weeks IBM announced an ongoing partnership with the US Department of Energy to build a 20 petaflop machine by 2011-2012,â he said.

âoeWe will need machines which probably have hundreds of thousands of processor cores in them and we roughly know how we can go about engineering it,â he said. âoeIt wouldnâ(TM)t be cost- or technically-feasible to bolt together 50 20-petaflop machines⦠and the power consumed would be crazy. By the time we deliver the 20 petaflop machine we will be well on the way to an exaflop machine.â

But you still end up with hundreds of thousands of cores, and you still need an OS that can effectively use that many cores, and nothing we have comes close other than Grid Computing.

Data manipulation on this scale simply must be divided and parceled out to be handled effectively.

So while they might not call it Grid computing, it still will be under the skin.

The race is on... (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471285)

Come on... the moment IBM makes a computer with a billion cores, both Microsoft and Linux will be salivating at the change to get -something- to run on them. I mean, what's a GB sized array just to keep track of the CPUs. Pure insanity. Any real geek would love to tackle that.

Re:The race is on... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471523)

The only reason MSFT would salivate is because they charge per core.

Re:The race is on... (2, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471807)

Wait until you see how IBM charges for it. If you think Microsoft has expensive licensing, you haven't worked closely enough with IBM.

Re:The race is on... (2, Informative)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471815)

They charge processor per socket not per core.

Re:One billion, but no Grid.. (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471479)

Yeah just wait for the next release of the Linux kernel: "Now supports over a quadrillion processors and up to 64 yottabytes of memory".

SKA Telescope (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471273)

Are theses telescopes of the 2 tone variety?

Re:SKA Telescope (1)

Radish03 (248960) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471403)

Unfortunately, the plans to put it on the lunar surface have fallen through, so there will be no Moon Ska telescope...

A SKA telescope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471291)

It's Madness I tell ye!

Wrong problem (0, Flamebait)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471327)

I'm glad that astronomy is helping to push the limits on computing, but you would hope there are more pressing problems to use record-breaking computer systems for. If astronomers and their sponsors are willing to pick up the tab, I wish them well, but I feel a lot of people that could be the ones paying for this computer research have their priorities in the wrong order.

Re:Wrong problem (2, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471525)

Astronomy comes up with pretty pictures. Other areas not so much so. So what would you rather have you tax money go to... Pretty pictures. Or columns of crunched numbers.

Re:Wrong problem (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471687)

I have mod points, right now, but there isn't a mod for "-1, moron".

Re:Wrong problem (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471805)

Doesn't matter anymore since you posted...

But seriously. I hate to guess what they are referring to when the OP refers to "more pressing problems" when dealing with computing power? I mean... computers will soon be our masters. We may as well make them the best damn masters we possibly can, right? If you were created by a bunch of self righteous peons who didn't give you the best of the best, you'd be pissed.

Re:Wrong problem (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29472157)

Maybe people don't get my post: I mean no harm to astronomy. I fully support scientific research and I realize its importance despite little immediate real-world benefit. My complaint is OTHER people aren't beating astronomy to the punch on pushing supercomputing and data storage. Space on supercomputers is in high demand and many of those projects deal with more immediate problems like crops and medicine- what I'm saying is I think the people supporting THOSE projects should be setting the records here. Astronomy doesn't get as much attention, so I'm assuming it doesn't get as much funding, which implies these other areas should have more money to spend on this.

Again, no complaints to the astronomers, they do brilliant work. I realize astronomers are the most realistic option for actually doing this kind of project- this is more of a "if only" than a real expectation.

Hard disks "somewhat unreliable"? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471339)

From TFA on "racetrack memory":

Today digital data is stored in two main types of devices, magnetic hard disk drives, and solid state random access memories. The former stores data very cheaply but, since it relies on the mechanical rotation of a disk, is slow and somewhat unreliable. (emphasis mine)

Define "somewhat". Case in point, I've had a F/W SCSI drive in 24/7/365 operation on my home system for 10 years. Somewhat indeed.

Re:Hard disks "somewhat unreliable"? (2, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471419)

Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence!

I have an 800MB HDD that still works, and up until a couple of years ago was in constant use. It was only retired because the old workhorse of a machine it was in was finally replaced. That said, I have also worked with big farms of disks and know that failures happen, and the hard drive is the second least reliable part of most computers after the fans. Anything with moving parts is going to eventually fail, there's no way around it.

Re:Hard disks "somewhat unreliable"? (4, Insightful)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471517)

And I have an uncle who smoked a pack a day for 40 years and never got lung cancer.

Ahhh, but can it... (2, Funny)

Shivinski (1053538) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471457)

...run Crysis at full resolution!?

Re:Ahhh, but can it... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471659)

define "full resolution"

Re:Ahhh, but can it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471705)

Hi ho, hi ho, it's back to the 08's we go...

That was a lame way of putting the data numbers (5, Funny)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471487)

about one thousand million 1Gb memory sticks each day

First of all, no one would be using manual storage to transfer the data.

Just throw up some numbers that makes sense to us. Like 99,420.5393 gigabit/second [google.com] .

Most large ISPs use OC-192 [wikipedia.org] as the backbones of their infrastructure. You'd need more than 10,200 [google.com] of those to handle that data load, and that's ignoring the overhead.

Or to put it into numbers that the RIAA can understand: 1.5707309 * 10^9 [google.com] music CDs every single day.

At 15 pieces of music per CD and $80,000/song that's $1.88 * 10^15 dollars/day flowing through that network. That's 632 times larger than the US federal budget for 2008 [wikipedia.org] .

No wonder the music industry is in trouble!

Re:That was a lame way of putting the data numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471617)

Gross, you use Opera.

Imagine a... (3, Interesting)

jedigeek (102443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471505)

Imagine a beowulf of those

omglol!

Re:Imagine a... (2, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471925)

Beowulf? A cyber-Beowulf made of a billion PCs? Grendel would stand no chance...

Oblig. (2, Interesting)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471595)

Where are the obligatory "beowulfcluster" tags and jokes already?

Sheesh, the standards around here sure are slipping.

Re:Oblig. (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471819)

Where's the "-1 tired slashdot cliche" mod when you need it?

Re:Oblig. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471823)

One post up. ;)

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29472041)

How about a bot net?

Bandwidth (2, Insightful)

eccenthink (1312043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471635)

So if I did my math correctly they're saying if they did distributed computing they'd need to transfer data at a rate of 92.5 Tbps.

I'm assuming a 1 Gb memory stick is actually 1 GB though...

Re:Bandwidth (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471967)

What is that in carrier pigeon per metre per second?

Where are they going to store it all? (1)

millia (35740) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471653)

Okay, if I do some rough math, just on the hard drives to dump that to
assuming 2tb drives, and ignoring the binary/decimal nonsense to be quick
assuming that the 1eb per day is correct and not the .25eb/day of wiki
assuming that 2tb costs $100 (volume discount, you know)
assuming no costs for things to hold these drives, and electricity, etc.

180 million drives. 18 billion dollars. Per year.

Let's assume by 2013 we've gone eightfold, to 16tb drives. Good, now we're at 2million ish drives and 2billionish dollars. Good

I realize they're planning for it all, but I just can't see how they're really going to store, let alone process, all that data. Whew.

I mean, they'd max out a btrfs/zfs system in 16 daysish at 1eb per. Perhaps this is just simply too much data...

Re:Where are they going to store it all? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471837)

Not all results would have to be saved... only the good ones. (just guessing)

Re:Where are they going to store it all? (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471919)

That's the way particle physics does things - there are typically several "trigger levels", the first one using very crude quantities that can be determined very quickly. The next level only has to examine the events that survive the first one, and so has time to conduct a more detailed analysis, and so forth. IIRC, the ATLAS experiment at the LHC only stores events at 100 Hz, down from a raw collision rate of 40 MHz.

Re:Where are they going to store it all? (4, Funny)

Pretzalzz (577309) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471875)

Maybe they could construct a really fast computer to process the data in real time so they wouldn't have to store it all. They might even release a press release about it.

how many mp3s worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471717)

Can we have the space in terms of numbers of mp3 music files ?

Or... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471733)

IBM is researching an exaflop machine with the processing power of about one billion PCs.

Or...

...a PC with a couple ATI X2 graphics cards in a CrossFire setup.

But does it run Crysis?

Can't make any sense out of it... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471779)

My calculator (Qalculate!) tell me, that

((1 exabyte) day) ((1 exaflop) second) to byte day
= 11.574074... (0.1^flop) TB

That does not make any sense to me. Can someone elaborate? ^^

A thousand million 1GB memory sticks? (2, Funny)

puddles (147314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471869)

They're gonna need a LOT of pigeons.

Racetrack Memory (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471889)

I lost a pile of dough because of that. Turns out that on a previous race something spooked the horse really badly. Now he never runs well on that track. Of course, the crooked bookie never told me about it.

From the FAQ... (3, Funny)

sker (467551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471915)

From the FAQ:

How far can this telescope see?

A: ONE STEP BEYOND!

How many PCs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471933)

So, are we talking about a thousand million PCs or a million million PCs?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...