[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: IP: Would You Believe?
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:54:46 -0400 >To: "David J. Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu> >From: "Tice F. DeYoung" <tdeyoung@mail.arc.nasa.gov> >Subject: Would You Believe? >Cc: ticed@bellatlantic.net, rsolomon@dsl.cis.upenn.edu > >Dave, > > Here's an interesting tidbit that is pretty incredible. For IP if you > want it. > >Tice > > From RoFC newsletter: > >". . .in 1995, according to the >June Gilder Technology Report (www.gildertech.com ><http://www.gildertech.com> ), >all the computers in all the world contained a >total of 200 terabytes of storage. > >This month -- just six years later, the advent of commodity ($300) >100-gigabyte drives means that just 2,000 PCs could contain >the world's storage of 1995. (There are about >ten exabytes of storage overall all at this point in time -- >"half-a-millionfold growth in less than a decade." IDC estimates that >the data stored by companies is growing at 80% per year - > > http://www.networkcomputing.com/1205/1205f1.html > >Looking forward, considering IBM's projections for .4-terabyte "Pixie >Dust" drives in 2003, then take a mere 50 PCs to match all the storage, >in all the world, of just eight years before. And we can expect >that trend to continue. >" >So does anyone think we need all this stuff? Looks like just >large amount of clutter. But I guess that's the way folks are. >Oh, wait, I forgot about the requirements for the new OS and >integrated apps, this may not be enough. > >Also, I guess we'll all need to get to 64-bit PC OSs since our current >ones are 32-bit (and can only handle 2.2 TB of data). For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC