![Data Storage Data Storage](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/storage_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
![Technology Technology](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/technology_64.png)
Data Storage Predictions for 2008 81
Lucas123 writes "IDC just released its predictions for 2008 with regards to data storage trends. Its research shows, among other things, a greater adoption of online backup and archiving services, the 'prevalent' use of full-disk encryption in the data center, and mainstream adoption of solid-state disk drives due to falling prices. From the story: 'There are very simple situations and application scenarios where solid-state disks will be worth the risk. It does promise some great potential benefit in terms of I/O ... [and] solid state will make a significant impact on reducing heat from spindle usage in server blade deployments and to boost functionality in mobile devices.' According to IDC, storage capacity is exploding at a rate of almost 60% per year."
Datacenters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know of a good home server that is client OS agnostic that can do this? We use Connected Net Backup at my work, but it's a bit pricey for my home stuff.
-nB
Re:Datacenters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother breaking into a server facility -- which typically have several hard-to-circumvent layers of physical security -- when some dumbass C[EFT]O is going to leave a notebook PC full of unencrypted business intelligence on the passenger seat of his Acura?
By the time somebody responds to the OnStar alarm, the window's already smashed and 10 million customer records compromised.
Re: (Score:1)
Or if a drive fails and is replaced by a vendor. That is unless the company doesn't want the drives going off-site and is willing to buy new components to replace what failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A disk failing doesn't get me fired, but losing a key when the data is perfectly OK, sitting right there and now forever inaccessible will.
And a 3rd thing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forecase: Overcast with clouds increasing (Score:5, Interesting)
Forecast! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger tubes... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bigger tubes... (Score:5, Funny)
FTS: No, you've got it backwards -- since only 40% of our storage capacity will be unexploded at the end of next year, we'll need tubes only 0.4 of the size of the current tubes. In 2010, we'll only need tubes 0.064 the size of the current tubes. See where this is headed?
In some 15 years and change, we'll only need microtubes.
In just 23 years, we'll need nanotubes. Let's just hope no one tries to send anything bigger than a picotruck down them.
Alternative Future (Score:3, Funny)
Redundant? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This article along with all of those who have something to say about backups should be modded "Redundant". After all, what good is a backup solution without redundancy?
That whole article sucked.
1) Says absolutely nothing that hasn't been true for over 30+ years.
2) Did this come from a random word generator?
3) Object based storage systems, maybe given enough time but 2008 isn't going to be magical.
4) Yep, we will see very high end $$$ laptops use solid state, but given the cost, current densities and M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's really little reason you couldn't load some clustering, redundant filesystem on all of your desktops. Using Linux (and probably some of the BSDs) it'd be pretty easy. Something like AFS or GFS with enough nodes wouldn't even need to be backed up explicitly if you had multiple office sites and configured your redundancies carefully.
Of course, you'd have to make sure your distributed data is only accessible to the proper people in you
Re: (Score:2)
Something like a distributed RAID volume striped over multiple machines?! BRILLIANT!
Add the words encrypted and redundant to it and you have the idea.
A file system that is like raid 5, but double writes each entry to different networks for added redundancy so if one dies another picks up. Add the sophistication in the background to dynamically repair for missing nodes and volume segments.
Then the 100GB unused disk space of 5000 PCs becomes a 500TB disk volume, say 200TB of double redundant reliable and
Re: (Score:1)
Recovery is the problem. When you accidentally delete a file, save bad data on top of an existing file, or a bug or hardware crash strikes and messes important data up, you want to be able to undo that easily.
That is, while your data-scatter idea is fine, the data-gather part needs to work when the user decides the existing version of data is bad, and that a previous version might be go
wish list (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wish list (Score:4, Informative)
2. On board RAM cache - it's called Intel Turbo Memory, it's cheap and it's been availabe on laptops for several months now and will soon be on the desktop also. Coupled with Vista readyboost it will do what you want it to, or it can also serve as a high speed flash RAM drive on which you can install frequently used apps or files.
3. They have them in 2GB also.
For the rest, they already have 32GB Flash for a reasonable price (around $300) if you make the comparison to RAM rather than spinning platters.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:wish list (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
your point that the OS should be doing the caching is a very good one. what started me on this quest was that there is a certain OS and OS-supplied service that my employer uses that isn't very good at keeping files cached in RAM. it seems to prefer to let the thread pool fill up all available space in a few minutes, reserving only a small fixed amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wish list (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not on the market yet.
Doesn't have the ram, but then given its performance figures you shouldn't care (and if you do, let's not forget you're asking it to do what your OS already does). Same goes for your write-back: at 600MB/s, why?
They're targeting 30$/gb.
C//
Re: (Score:1)
Thats the reason this isn't likely to be widely sucessful: Hard-drives can be had for under 0.30 USD per GB. Lets not forget what R.A.I.D. means: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Drives. 'Redundant array' being important, but 'Inexpensive' being crucial. The purpose of a R.A.I.D. is to achieve performance of expensive things like this but without the expense.
Re: (Score:2)
14 15K FC won't give you this level of performance, unless you go into RAID-0. I'll discount RAID-0, because it's almost never used in real deployments.
I feel certain that this class of device will appear, and quite soon, in enterprise storage solutions where it will be used as a persistent backing store (cache) in the very RAID arrays that you are talking about. This isn't just guesswork; my position in industry is such that enterprise storage vendors do backflips in order to show me their developing produ
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many buyers who are not like you. The issue is that to many buyers, both $50 and $0 are "free". There is a price point threshold below which the cost is a non expense. This is particularly true in enterprise purchasing situations, where the processing of the paperwork to merely buy and item is hundreds of dollars. While that only assesses the im
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed it for you...
The reason I would choose a slower 500GB drive for 0 USD over a faster 64GB drive for 50 USD is that I place capacity over speed. With the 64GB drive, while I would (in theory) have improved disk access times, which would result in better performance in software (read: Games) The reduced load times and fractionally higher FPS would be outweighed by the fact that I would have
Re: (Score:2)
Re your "correction": there are plenty of
I see what you're saying about sensitivity to data locality. While there is unfortunately as of yet a solution for this, what's wanting here is "transparent
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, for reference, I have a Dell PERC5e controller and 10 10K 300GB SAS drives. Configured in RAID-5, these drives manage to sustain just over 200MB/s on read. If the device performs
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A Network Appliance 3000 series (3020) will top out at around 275MB/sec. I have a 3020, a 3050, and a 3070...
FYI.
C//
Bullshit (Score:1, Troll)
1) there is no need 2) encryption costs resources
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) there is no need 2) encryption costs resources
Except for laptops. Especially those that belong to governments and corporations. But do agree with the datacenter, it is useless in a secured area. The IDC serves up a poorly thought out storage trends should be the title.
Re: (Score:1)
Numbers 9 and 10 are red herrings... (Score:2, Insightful)
This assumes that the 'environmental cost' of continuing to operate obscelete technology is less than the 'environment cost' of upgrading to more efficient technology. This is not always the case; Imagine adding capacity to a PDP-11 to 'keep it modern.' The cost of powering the equipment more than makes up for any possible environmental ills. So basically what they are saying is that next year people are goin
Re:Numbers 9 and 10 are red herrings... (Score:4, Insightful)
10. I don't think they mean skimping on data backups, they mean de-duplication of unnecessary hardware and not necessarily data backups. For instance not having 2TB of storage on a server when it is only using 100GB - use thin provisioning to give that server access to a dynamic storage volume that gives it only the space it needs. Cut down on duplicate hardware that handles things like backup AD controllers, data backup, etc. and put those tasks on virtual servers. Virtualize your tape libraries with an offsite hard disk backup array. All these lessen the power footprint of your datacenter without lessening the redundancy of your critical data backups.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some products even posit to do block-level changes, so if one page of a word document changes, then only those blocks that changed will be copied. Products from
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Massive optical storage? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What you need to do is say "how much will I need in five years?" and then build that. That said, if the purpose is long-term archival backup of hard-drives, anything smaller than
Re: (Score:1)
What's wrong with tape drives?
Tape drives? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They're finicky. There's too many formats. Not everyone has the same tape drive (and very few folks even have one in the first place). The drives are expensive and the tapes are no bargain either. And going hand-in-hand with the "nobody has one" is the issue that if your tape drive dies a few years down the road, you may be SOL at getting data back off of it if you picked the wrong brand.
Then there's the whole access time issue and tapes that only last a few times befo
Re: (Score:1)
Predictions, my arse... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've ever been involved in an IDC, Gartner or whatever marketing discussion, you know that the "research" mainly consists of going from vendor to vendor (data storage vendors in this case) and asking what, in their wildest dreams, would the ideal demand curve look like. Then they charge for actually coming up with some supporting information to meet the vendors' preferred conclusion, and release the whole thing to consumers in the hopes of stimulating some demand for the paying vendors. Very scientific.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Predictions, my arse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You work for Gartner, right?
Inertia will keep its hold... (Score:2)
I've written a wonderful (in my opinion, anyway) plugin [libpipe.com] for Sybase's backup-server. It allows one to (among other things) send the dumps over to the outside backup-providers immediately — without waiting for the dump to complete. One can also do on-the-fly encryption and not worry about the unencrypted data remaining on disk. Etc, etc.
The price is low (compared to the cost of even a single Sybase installation) and yet I sold less than a handful of licenses in 8 months, plus a few given away to quali [libpipe.com]
My prediction; high profile data loss (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The man is a retard.
Blades? (Score:2)
In 2008 enterprises are continuing to move to boot from SAN.
Virtual servers drive iSCSI? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My predictions (Score:3, Insightful)