×

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!

World's Servers Process 9.57ZB of Data a Year

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-many-gigaquads-is-that dept.

The Internet 170

CWmike writes "Three years ago, the world's 27 million business servers processed 9.57 zettabytes, or 9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of information. Researchers at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and the San Diego Supercomputer Center estimate that the total is equivalent to a 5.6-billion-mile-high stack of books stretching from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth, repeated about 20 times. By 2024, business servers worldwide will annually process the digital equivalent of a stack of books extending more than 4.37 light-years to Alpha Centauri, the scientists say. The report, titled 'How Much Information?: 2010 Report on Enterprise Server Information,' (PDF) was released at the SNW conference last month."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

170 comments

How many of those requests... (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075558)

...involved "v1agra" and fake Rolex watches?

Re:How many of those requests... (2)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075592)

That 'pile of books' would get you to Uranus.

Re:How many of those requests... (3, Informative)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075698)

That 'pile of books' would get you to Uranus.

That's good. If each pill can 'double your penis', I'd only take me 46 or so go get there*

*Citation: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 1737

Units of measurements (3, Funny)

beowulfcluster (603942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075570)

How many libraries of Congress is one Neptune height stack?

Re:Units of measurements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075612)

12 Shit Tonnes.

(which is around 13.22 Shit Tons and almost 100 Shit Loads)

Re:Units of measurements (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075772)

Let's see. ~1MB per book.
22,194,656 per LOC.
22,194,656,000 bytes per LOC.

9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes = 20 NHS = ~431,184,876,000 LOCs

So very very roughly speaking a Neptune-height-stack (NHS) is around 21,559,243,800 Libraries-of-Congress (LOCs)

The real question is, how many Burning-Libraries-of-Congress (BLOCs) are spent processing all of this information?

Re:Units of measurements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076002)

Oops. That's 20 round-trip NHS = 40 NHS = ~431,184,876,000 LOCs.

So 10,779,621,900 LOCs.

Re:Units of measurements (1)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075790)

In case anyone was wondering, the 5.6 billion mile stack is about 6.6 million Library of Congress Distance Units right now (exact amount is subject to uncertainty in the measurement and drift of the Bookshelf Inflationary Constant, consult your local Librarian of Congress for more details).

Neptunians did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075588)

...no human being would stack books like this.

How long to one hellabyte? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075618)

Hellabyte is a word now, right?

from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075640)

At what point in their respective orbits? The distance from Earth to Neptune varies by about three hundred million kilometers depending on what time of year.

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075722)

This would cause a variance of only 5%, which is insignificant.

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075798)

I'll just let the business know that this 5% downtime is insignificant. It's only 8.4 hours downtime a week guys, come on!

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075966)

Just do it like Sony. Do it all at once.

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075802)

we can just place copies of flatland or war and peace in the stack to cover the variations.

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075900)

Hello, I am one of the researchers. The answer to your question is "yes". As it turns out, amount of data processed varies by about 0.1% as well, and it seems to depend on Neptune's orbit. We're now investigating this. Seems it has to do with gravitational waves from colliding black holes which is interfering with the speed of light, in turn impeding the number of bits per second that can be sent through fiber connections on earth.

Thank you for your insightful comment.

Re:from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth (1)

iinlane (948356) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075948)

Not if you're creationist - for them Neptune revolves around the earth and hence the distance does not change much.

units (1)

kipsate (314423) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075642)

equivalent to a 5.6-billion-mile-high stack of books stretching from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth

Glad to see we finally got rid of that silly "library of congress" unit.

Re:units (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076046)

Don't forget the added precision offered by the distance-to-planet unit.

The stack could be shortened to Saturn and back if they would reduce to 10 point font.

Re:units (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076082)

Of course not, silly. The Library of Congress is a measure of volume, not length.

Sigh, what do they teach people nowadays.

tired (1)

aintnostranger (1811098) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075646)

I'm getting a little tired of science stories dumbing down things to "piles of books", "libaries of congress" etc... This site's is news for nerds, not news for Joe Sixpack.

Re:tired (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075838)

a real nerd would calculate the speed of the top book in the stack relative to the bodies it would pass on the way, given that the stack is in a static location on earth.

Re:tired (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075954)

Pretty sure such a stack, properly affixed to the earth, would slow down the earth's rotation significantly.

Re:tired (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075868)

This site's is news for nerds, not news for Joe Sixpack.

That's precisely the reason it's measured in books and not in football fields.

Re:tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076522)

I'm pretty tired of the term 'Joe Sixpack'. It implies that the poster is 'self-aggrandizing nerd still angry that he wasn't popular in high school who trolls online forums all day, looking down at the rest of the populace who don't give a shit how smart he thinks he is'.

How many... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075650)

...neptunes of porn are contained in this?

And then it all collapsed (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075662)

"By the year 2100, old had become so scarce that it was worth more than an ounce of silver, creating an energy drought. Citizens could barely afford to turn-on a 10 watt lightbulb..... forget the high expense of a computer and internet network."

Surely there must be some Science-based fiction that deal with this negative future?

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075684)

Yeah, I'm totally up for reading some good LED fic.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075754)

LEDs use a Lot more power. They would not be used during an energy drought. Probably e-ink would be used (like the kindle), although it would cost $50 per battery charge (ouch). Maybe society would revert to paper, since it requires no energy to use a book.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075940)

LEDs use a Lot more power.

No, they don't. Not light emitted per unit of electrical input, anyway.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076066)

Maybe society would revert to paper, since it requires no energy to use a book.

LOL good luck reading paper books without gas for the chainsaws, diesel for the cranes and trucks to the mill, hundreds of megawatts of electricity for the paper mills, diesel for the trucks to the printers, oil for the printing press ink, propane for the pallet forklifts, diesel for the trucks to the store, gasoline to drive to and from the store...

Would be easier and probably more ecologically sound to stick to wireless kindles.

Also I find it unlikely a kindle charge would require $50 at present value... That would imply the food to keep a bicyclist pedaling very hard for about six minutes would cost over $50... In the inevitable hyperinflation scenario, a single M and M candy might sell for $50 when a starbucks coffee is a million bucks.

I'm guessing a kindle has a single cell battery so figure 2 volts and at most lets say 5 amp hours of capacity. That's a whopping 10 watthours. So, a bicyclist can pedal a good 100 watts for quite awhile, so estimate you could theoretically charge a kindle using 6 minutes of bicycle pedal power. Most likely someone pedals very hard for an hour to charge a big battery, which slowly trickle charges the Kindle over the course of hours. Another way to estimate is a USB port can charge a kindle in a couple hours, and USB ports struggle to output much more than a watt, so it can't be more than a couple watthours.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075826)

"By the year 2100, old had become so scarce that it was worth more than an ounce of silver, creating an energy drought. Citizens could barely afford to turn-on a 10 watt lightbulb..... forget the high expense of a computer and internet network."

Surely there must be some Science-based fiction that deal with this negative future?

There's a seniors home near my place that's full of old. Come and get it.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075994)

Assuming you meant "oil", the premise is still preposterous.

We have dams.
We have nuclear reactors.
We have vegetables that literally ooze disgusting oils useful only for burning and causing diabetes.
When we run out of all of those, we can burn the diabetics.

Then, we have human-powered generators such as hand cranks, and flesh lights.

Re:And then it all collapsed (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076200)

I agree that it's silly to think that electricity will disappear forever. However when you sit down and think seriously about the problem involved in say, powering your home through alternative energy, it dawns on you what a huge amount of power we consume with our basic house-hold appliances. I just have to look at that 125 amp breaker - with 240V that is 30kW that can be sucked through it. Of course I never get close, even with the water heater, clothes dryer, fridge, stove and computer running at the same time, but for peak power that is one crapload of solar panels, batteries and/or wind turbines just for little old me. PS - I am not in the US, your building codes may vary.

Measurement we can relate to. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075674)

9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of information. Researchers at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and the San Diego Supercomputer Center estimate that the total is equivalent to a 5.6-billion-mile-high stack of books stretching from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth, repeated about 20 times.

Enough of the "book" analogy. How many 3 minute clips of porn is that?!

Re:Measurement we can relate to. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075806)

At Blu-ray quality of 13 gigabytes per hour, that's about 83 million years of... video.

can we get a picture of this idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075694)

it would look cool hopefully

And how much is that at retail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075734)

Wow, according to Bell Canada, that means those companies are paying $14.355 trillion a year on internet access alone, never mind the machines.

You could solve world hunger with that kind of money, and there's 27 of them? That's enough to feed everyone on the planet and pay for their housing for the next 6 years.

Hey, this is what your government believes...

Re:And how much is that at retail? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076028)

Hmm. That's about 25% of the world's GDP spent on internet access.

(Assuming, of course, that all that data actually transferred over the internet. Which is actually not all that likely: Much of that data would be data generated in-house, and transfered - if not not processed on the same server which generates it - over local networks. After all, if you generated a few TB of data every day that needed to be processed, why spend money to send it someplace if you don't have to?)

What are we going to do now? (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075744)

After Zetta (10^21) comes Yotta (10^24), but then what? Are SI going to come up with new prefixes for values 10^27 and up?

Re:What are we going to do now? (5, Funny)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075864)

After Zetta (10^21) comes Yotta (10^24), but then what? Are SI going to come up with new prefixes for values 10^27 and up?

Lotta
Buncha
Loada
Tonna

That should hold us for a while.

Re:What are we going to do now? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076406)

You're not considering uniqueness for abbreviation purposes.

Anyway, next will likely be something starting with X, such as Xerta- (and xekto- (10^-27) and Xerbi- (2^90)), and continuing to work backwards through the alphabet, skipping T as it is already taken.

I expect there to be a fight over who gets naming rights for 10^±30 and 2^100 with resistance to using W for various reasons.

Also we're not beyond using characters not in our 26 letter set. See micro-.

Re:What are we going to do now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076094)

Pretty sure that's when we start using the "quad" system.

Kiloquads, Megaquads, Gigaquads.

If you want you know what's after that, you'll have to invent your own Sci-Fi show.

I assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075778)

that a significant part of those bytes is just pr0n.

We've come a long way (1)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075786)

"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country, and have talked with the best people in business administration. I can assure you on the highest authority that data processing is a fad and won't last out the year." — Editor in charge of business books at Prentice-Hall publishers, responding to Karl V. Karlstrom (a junior editor who had recommended a manuscript on the new science of data processing), c. 1957

It's been hardly more than fifty years. Where will we be in another fifty years, say by 2057? A virtual stack of books to circumscribe the whole galaxy? I, for one, am impressed that despite our propensity to beat each other into a bloody pulp over differences in opinions, we hairless apes have come this far!

Re:We've come a long way (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076554)

I have travelled the length and breadth of this internet, and have talked with the worst people in web 2.0. I can assure you on the highest authority that people's hunger for unoriginal content is a fad and won't last out the year.

Better visual (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075836)

Most people cannot imagine the distance to Neptune, so that is a bad visual. Here is a better one:

9.57ZB is approx 10^22 bytes. A typical laptop HDD can hold a terabyte, so you would need 10^10, to about 10 billion. A laptop HDD is about 3 cubic inches. A standard shipping container (40x8x8 ft^3) would hold about 1.5 million if they were packed tightly. So you would need about 6800 containers. That would be a train about 75 miles long.

If each byte in 9.57ZB was a water molecule. It would be slightly less than a teaspoon.

Re:Better visual (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075938)

So how many Libraries of Congress are in a teaspoon?

Re:Better visual (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076242)

So you would need about 6800 containers.

So about 1 Sendai tsunami's worth of containers?

Who really cares? (3, Informative)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075844)

The vast majority of this data isn't stored. The vast majority of it is streaming porn and Netflix. Why did we pay some "scientist" for 3 years (read the summary, it says "three years ago") to calculate this, so we can all be amused by it on /. for 10 minutes? Part of the reason nobody's working in science anymore is that most of our government- and university-backed science is fluff like this to get your soundbite, rather than stuff that makes a difference in our world. Figure out how to GET to Neptune, not how to stack virtual books that high with 30-second free trials of every porn site in Russia.

Re:Who really cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075912)

Yeah man, I'm right with you. Fuck this learning shit. If a piece of information isn't immediately useful in my life, it is completely useless and a complete waste of my time. What has learning ever gotten us? NOTHING, that's what.

Re:Who really cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075984)

The vast majority of this data isn't stored. The vast majority of it is streaming porn and Netflix. Why did we pay some "scientist" for 3 years (read the summary, it says "three years ago") to calculate this, so we can all be amused by it on /. for 10 minutes?

Because that's all he did for three years. Three years. Just to say that number. Obviously if his research had achieved anything else it would have been mentioned in the summary.

No-one gives a shit about real science - not even /., so the press churn out reports of some of the lightest fluff, skimmed from the surface of science and dressed up in kindergarten speak. Then everyone complains that no-one does any real science any more. #idiocracy

Re:Who really cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075986)

Actually its data to get businesses to realize that they need to invest in more hardware. Hardly fluff for them. To places like the potential Netflixes and future porn sites they need to know how much data they can realistic expect to have to handle projected outward. The last time I checked the world ran on money not nice thoughts and Star Trek utopian concepts. I'd love nothing more than to see a trip to Neptune in my life, but unless it can be proven profitable by studies like this one it isn't going to happen. Science like this is how those businesses make decisions for future revenue. If you ever want progress, its through these outlets that you're going to see it.

Re:Who really cares? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076160)

FTFA "Most of this information is incredibly transient: it is created, used and discarded in a few seconds without ever being seen by a person," said Bohn, a professor of technology management at UC San Diego.

XML overhead, HTTP headers, page reloads instead of AJAX/DOM updates. And much of it is identical, just served to different people, such as the dynamically generated static pages of slashdot.

There is no point to this number other than illustrating how much data goes over the pipes. And even then, it studied only servers, not p2p or darknet traffic.

The analysis relied heavily on data and estimates from researchers at IDC and Gartner, which compile regular reports on server sales.

So people buy servers, which translate into bytes served. Brilliant! the underlying data isn't even representative, just extrapolated. There is no content to this story other than back-of-the-envelope arse-originated SWAG.

Re:Who really cares? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076312)

Don't worry there is real science going on, but unfortunately you don't speak Mandarin.

Re:Who really cares? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076484)

The vast majority of this data isn't stored. The vast majority of it is streaming porn and Netflix. Why did we pay some "scientist" for 3 years (read the summary, it says "three years ago") to calculate this, so we can all be amused by it on /. for 10 minutes? Part of the reason nobody's working in science anymore is that most of our government- and university-backed science is fluff like this to get your soundbite, rather than stuff that makes a difference in our world. Figure out how to GET to Neptune, not how to stack virtual books that high with 30-second free trials of every porn site in Russia.

Who cares? I'll tell you who cares -- Copyright holders. I may have a website, but I did not authorize you or all the intermediary routers to copy my work multiple times per view! Just because I put my HTML e-book on my web-server doesn't give you or your ISP the right to make so many duplications!

I'm positive if you further analyzed the data that was transmitted you would realize that there are Billions and Billions of illegal reproductions in that dataset!

iTunes doesn't license AT&T's routers to make duplications of the songs you download -- And yet there they are! 9 Zetabytes worth of illegal downloads!

(Seriously folk -- Destroy Copyright laws or reform them, they do not apply anymore, this is the Information age.)

Bits and Bytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075890)

11,298,261,810,265,626,173,768 bytes... please multiply by 1024.

This (1)

Konster (252488) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075904)

This needs to be put into A Library Of Congress context before I can understand it.

Re:This (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075992)

I can't understand this, really, unless it's a pizza analogy. Or maybe a car analogy. Best yet, a pizza delivery car analogy.

Meaningless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36075920)

Unless you can quantify this in terms of number of football fields I cannot comprehend the size of this value.

Analogy (2)

gwstuff (2067112) | more than 2 years ago | (#36075930)

Unless you count the bits, rather than the bytes. That gets you all the way to Alpha Centauri *and* three planetary blocks further down the starway to the nice, homely pizzeria at the intersection...

Getting close to a mole (1)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076040)

This is within a factor of ten to a mole of bits [wolframalpha.com] . That's an analogy science geeks can relate to.

Re:Getting close to a mole (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076408)

Great, I can just see someone at Best Buy in a few years:

"Yes, I'l like to buy a hard drive please, 0.2 mol dm^3 or more...

Your brain (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076098)

In related news, your brain processed 10 zettabytes in the four months. Seriously. Even if you take the minimalist view that each neuron is just doing a simple summation and threshold, and each synapse is a simple multiply, there are over 10^14 synapses in the human brain. The brain runs at 100 hz, meaning 10^16 bytes processed per second. There are about 10^7 seconds in four months, which comes out to 10^22 total operations, or about 10 zettabytes. So really, I'm surprised how *small* the number is for the worlds networks. Clearly, true AI is still a long ways off.

Why not use relavant terms? (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076168)

Isn't a lot clearer just to say it's equivalent 9.57 billion terabytes?

I mean you could also make it seem really small by saying it was equivalent to the size of a 1 second clip of the beating of a fruit fly's wing recorded as uncompressed 4096x4096 video at 71.3 picohertz.

That's a messed up metric... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076202)

Why the hell would they measure the data in Zetabytes? That comes out to an unwieldy 9.57 ZB.

Books between planets? Common folk don't comprehend global scales, much less interplanetary scales... Want proof? Did anyone ask at what time of year the measurement was taken? An exact date would be required, and even then, most common folk don't know if we are closer or nearer to the planets mentioned at that date -- It's a ridiculously obtuse measure since the unit (planetary distance) wildly varies by date.

Besides: What size book? How many pages per book? Lines per page / Font size? Vellum or Parchment? Standard 20Lb copier paper? Every example in the whole article is totally inaccurate. Additionally, Libraries of Congress (as some commenter's have inquired about) is an antiquated measurement that also varies.

I prefer using the already firmly established measure, thus, TFS should read: "Three years ago, the world's 27 million business servers processed exactly 1 Internet of information..."

How much data is a 2008 Internet worth in today's Internets? Exactly 1 TL;DR.

(On a more serious note, are we sure they don't mean Zebbibytes?)

And to think.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076210)

I more impressed with myself after reading this considering I know EVERYTHING!!

IPv6 (1)

dalleboy (539331) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076224)

Even if each byte of these 9.57 zettabytes were assigned it's own IPv6 address the address space would suffice for additionally 35 Petayears.

Then in 25 years. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076230)

We can carry that much information in our cellphones. We go back in history see this article and laugh at their puny attempt to impress our future selfs on the amount of data we once processed.
I remember back in the late 80's people were talking about the amount of data that can be stored on 3.5" Floppy. And was impressed they could fit the text of an encyclopedia onto it.

More meaningless numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076264)

I have a book which is approximately 1.88 inches thick. It weighs 2.8 pounds.

It takes 24 trees to create a ton of printing paper. Those trees would be 40 feet tall and ~7 inches in diameter. A ton of this book would have nearly 715 volumes.

2808 copies of this book would cover a mile and weigh a little less than four tons. A stack of these books going to Proxima Centauri would comprise 69.64 quadrillion volumes and weigh 13.92x10^14 tons (note our home planet weighs approximately 1.316x10^25 pounds) requiring a forest of 3.8976x10^15 trees. Considering a little less than 1250 trees per two and a half acres becomes 5000 trees per ten acres. 3,200,000 trees fill a square mile requiring 1.24x10^23 square miles for the trees.

Goodness knows how much water would be needed for irrigation, the biomass for fertilization, the joules necessary to render the wood into paper let alone the necessary distribution/dispersement and people power needed to make this a reality.

From this brief thought experiment I have come to one conclusion. The USA needs to convert to metric.

Civilizations and efficiency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36076394)

Don't these kind of stats bring home, presently, how utterly inefficient we are as a technoligcal species? With all that data being processed, how many times has the same problem, and scenario, been calculated, and recalculated again? How much information was processed, and power used to be more specific, that produced nothing of intrinsic, redeeming value to society or advanced civilization in some form more than the stifling the moments for the purpose of entertainment? Yes the social masses must have their break and lethargy, however it's hard to see the gold in stream when we muddy so much water.

I must apologize, though. Me being the dreamer that I am, hoped we'd be furthur along in our spacial exporations than we are at this point in time.

Energy requirements (1)

Luckster7 (234417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076402)

It's a good thing that the Zettabyte File System (ZFS) stores more than a few zetabytes or we wouldn't be able to go swimming anymore.

Blizzard And Activision (2)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076460)

I wonder if this counted all of the World of Warcraft servers worldwide as well? Since 2004 I'm sure there's been a LOT of information sent back and forth between millions of players! :)

I just don't believe it (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#36076550)

I do not want to under appreciate the people that made this research, but I just don't believe it. At all.

Evey time I see any of this studies I wonder if there exist on this planet any way to know, not even an approximation, a thing like that.

Thousands of private servers can not be count on.

  9.57 zettabytes ? Wow, how did you get the .57? Maybe it was rounded from the real 9.56873981273982173 zettabytes calculated.

A more serious conclusion would have been "about 10 zettabytes".

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...