flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Heap > Petabox and the death of NTFS

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
http://www.archive.org/web/petabox.php
Quote:
... originally created to safely store and process one petabyte (a million gigabytes) of information.
Even though that is a huge amount of storage in a few years time that system will seem rather small and inadequate. Already individual 2TB HDD's are available. An exabyte system made from them won't be far away. I predict in less than 10 years a 2^64 bit (2^61 bytes, 2 exabytes) system will be running. Massive storage systems will reach the desktop soon afterwards and NTFS will die due to the inability to address the whole drive. Just as with FAT12/16/32 now, soon people will be saying "Oh, NTFS has a terrible restriction of only 16EB max. size, don't use that." Razz
Post 07 Feb 2009, 17:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
revolution, I doubt that. What will you do with so much space?

Flash is expensive anyway and I predict they will focus more on it. Most likely we may see flash becoming standard (cheap) but not insane amount of storage for desktop purposes...

Plus we're kinda at the end of the road (I mean, in 10 years' time).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 07 Feb 2009, 17:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Plus we're kinda at the end of the road (I mean, in 10 years' time).
I don't share your pessimism. I doubt the world stops rotating in ten years time. Yes, if your meaning is that ten years from now, cpu architecture will have changed....No, if you suggest that what we have now won't likely change any further, by ten years from now, i.e. implying that we already know everything there is to know about computer science.
Smile
Post 07 Feb 2009, 18:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
No I am talking about miniaturization & Moore's Law (sort of). We're already at 45nm, and they had to change the transistor design (Intel). And of course, about digital data, not 'quantum bits', because Exabytes are, after all, digital...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 07 Feb 2009, 20:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
revolution wrote:

I predict in less than 10 years a 2^64 bit (2^61 bytes, 2 exabytes) system will be running.


Will that be enough space to install windows 10 ?
Post 07 Feb 2009, 20:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2795
Location: dank orb
MichaelH wrote:
Will that be enough space to install windows 10 ?
Sure, the Windows 10 Professional Service version will only need about half that and a fiber connection for Windows Update to suck on. Monthly dues will reflect data usage as MS will store all your documents. We'll go from cloud computing to vacuum computing - it'll be out of this world.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 08 Feb 2009, 02:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Borsuc wrote:
revolution, I doubt that. What will you do with so much space?
Do you remember the famous quote from Bill Gates?: <paraphrasing>"We will never need more than 640KB of memory".

So what will I do with such space? Who knows, and it doesn't matter anyway, no matter how much space I buy I still seem able to fill it. I doubt that will change regardless of how big storage gets.

<speculation>Maybe we will get 3D movies? Not just the 2 fixed views we see now, but genuine 360° viewable movies. They might need a lot of storage space.
Post 08 Feb 2009, 02:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1149
Quote:
Will that be enough space to install windows 10 ?

Sure, but what's more worrying will be the registry 6 months after the first installation. THAT would be creepy.


Quote:
Maybe we will get 3D movies? Not just the 2 fixed views we see now, but genuine 360° viewable movies.

And don't forget the metadata used to describe the olfactory (or other) stimuli.
Post 08 Feb 2009, 13:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Smellovision.

Who remembers the old Infocom games with the "Scratch 'n sniff"? Ah, those were great.
Post 08 Feb 2009, 14:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
revolution wrote:
Just as with FAT12/16/32 now, soon people will be saying "Oh, NTFS has a terrible restriction of only 16EB max. size, don't use that.

Yep! And it's sooner than you think.
FAT64 (aka ExFAT) was implemented two years as an optimized format for Flash memory but is now supported in Windows Vista SP1. It uses a freespace bitmap. The maximum file size goes from 4GB to 16 ExaBytes.

LINK
Post 08 Feb 2009, 16:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1149
revolution wrote:
Smellovision.

Just like in Huxley's Brave New World.
Post 08 Feb 2009, 16:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
revolution wrote:
<speculation>Maybe we will get 3D movies? Not just the 2 fixed views we see now, but genuine 360° viewable movies. They might need a lot of storage space.
You mean interactive movies or video games? (i.e where you can change the camera?). Not very likely as that would require shaping the entire universe (you can go anywhere with the "camera"? or what?). Plus recording them (the entire world I mean) would be a real pain -- do not forget that if the end-user experience isn't going to make them buy it because of the increase, it ain't worth to "manufacture".

More likely would be a Matrix virtual world, but that's over the top Wink


3D movies already exist btw and aren't very popular. You only need stereoscopic recording (just two images in an eye-to-eye fashion). You also have to take into account the budget it eats up etc... which doesn't result in better experience for the end user so it's pretty worthless in most cases.


Or maybe you say super-ultra-high-resolution movies?
You have to overcome technical resolution (recording equipment + the actual end-user display) problems first, energy consumption and all that... plus there's this 9 megapixel maximum human eye angular resolution... Wink

not to mention bandwidth. May be feasible but probably hugely expensive to get high bandwidth.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 08 Feb 2009, 18:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
It was just idle speculation about the 3D stuff. But since you are talkin' 'bout it ... I don't have any particular idea about how it is going to be stored or played back. Maybe 360 views instead of the 2 views now, who knows? Maybe 720 views? Maybe 180? Maybe the sound will be 26 channel x32bit with 8000x6000x32 resolution and multi angle options all uncompressed for best quality? Maybe deliberately super-ultra-high-res that the eye can't see all in one view so that you have to watch it multiple times to see it all?

I think the important point is that there will always be applications designed to fit the current technology. If HDD sizes keep going up then the applications will come. I guarantee it.
Post 08 Feb 2009, 19:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Not really, your viewpoint is concerned more with the "sci-fi" predictions, or more theoretical predictions than actual practice. Razz

If you look at some predictions in the 50s you'll probably start to laugh your ass off at how it came to be Laughing

What would 360 views actually mean? That you can change the camera?

After all, the movie is just a story that you playback. If you change the camera view everytime you might as well have a video game cutscence instead. Or, especially if you can even MOVE the view. Let's say the plot takes place in a house. You decide to move around and get outside, etc... (ruin the plot). However notice that this would require tremendous effort for recording the movie, as the entire world needs to be recorded every time tick -- virtually impossible.

By the way, I'm not saying that we may not make a Matrix virtual world -- but it wouldn't be a movie anymore, with a plot and a story and etc... Once you get in there to "move around the view" as you wish, the plot and story is gone. It won't be a movie anymore.

revolution wrote:
I think the important point is that there will always be applications designed to fit the current technology. If HDD sizes keep going up then the applications will come. I guarantee it.
What about bandwidth? Maybe we can make a super-SATA-cable or something? How far can this go? Razz

Having 100000000000 trillion exabytes ain't going to help much if retrieving all the data on it takes 100 years. (just speculating)

Sometimes, unlike in sci-fi, we have to deal with practice and the laws of physics... Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 08 Feb 2009, 20:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2795
Location: dank orb
We might have virtual pets that record "views" of our lives - throughout our life. Not just for one's own use, but for the use of other's. The "movie" then would be a reconstruction, or compilation of multiple virtual lives (composites of multiple views and creative flair). Watching will be more akin to dreaming than what we do now - a choose your own adventure of sorts. (Jump ahead to 20:45 in the video to get a story relating to the present topic.)
Post 08 Feb 2009, 21:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Borsuc: I think you are restricting your thinking to how things are done today. Who is to say that we won't have full 3D viewing boxes (to replace the current flat screen). Perhaps the box can recreate the scene in full 3D. Hey it is only speculation so why not. As for the bandwidth, well there is no reason that the interface is not also upgraded as the sizes grow.

Also, I doubt the drives will still use rotating mechanical discs. Once they go solid state with maybe a DDR3 type interface then bandwidth can be scalable also.

Maybe the drives will have GPUs distributed throughout which have high speed local access to portions of the storage medium. Then we could do local data retrieval and processing in parallel to greatly increase the throughput.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 01:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
revolution wrote:
Borsuc: I think you are restricting your thinking to how things are done today. Who is to say that we won't have full 3D viewing boxes (to replace the current flat screen). Perhaps the box can recreate the scene in full 3D. Hey it is only speculation so why not.
Why not what? Movies have a camera. This camera changes position as you well know, that is one of the magic behind the movie and the plot outline. If you can turn around and look, it means these camera switch-shots must be eliminated (otherwise it could confuse the hell outta you). Why the heck use a full 3D screen when you can just put on a virtual helmet with only 2 stereoscopic images and be done with it? (even today)

revolution wrote:
As for the bandwidth, well there is no reason that the interface is not also upgraded as the sizes grow.
Physics has limits. Especially if we'll go on by the "serial" route (i.e SATA) since clocking has limits after all. Light speed, interference, and all that...

revolution wrote:
Also, I doubt the drives will still use rotating mechanical discs. Once they go solid state with maybe a DDR3 type interface then bandwidth can be scalable also.
a 256 GB solid-state disk costs around 4000$ last time I checked (but that was a while ago, last year).

Am I thinking too small? I dunno, probably, then again probably not. I am, after all, thinking about the limits in the laws of physics. Panasonic tried to beat the laws of physics in one of their digital cameras -- the result? Very noisy images. (you can't beat the laws of physics no matter how miniature your sensor "cells" are, you'll still need a big one if you want quality)

Now what if we already got a Matrix virtual world? What then? Wouldn't that be the end of the road? What more could you make than emulate absolutely everything and all senses? Razz (am talking about entertainment now)

Also you can't just expand the volume (regarding computation I mean) with the current mechanisms, because of 2 factors, two of which are 1) expelling heat and 2) manufacturing costs. A poor CPU with a high volume to surface ratio will burn 6 seconds after turned on even if the poor thing was put into a bath of liquid nitrogen.

revolution wrote:
Maybe the drives will have GPUs distributed throughout which have high speed local access to portions of the storage medium. Then we could do local data retrieval and processing in parallel to greatly increase the throughput.
You're saying as if our new computers would be supercomputers Wink

Of course, we can always just start to use big computers to have huge storage, huge processing capabilities, huge heat expelling devices, etc... but I think the point of this is to not lose convenience. When I say we're at the end of the road, I mean without making bigger computers Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Borsuc wrote:
You're saying as if our new computers would be supercomputers
Yes, the computers of today are the supercomputers of yesteryear. So we already have supercomputers in front of us.

Remember these words: We will have commodity petabox-capable computers available cheaply to the public in the future (i.e. they will be a standard PC for that era). I'm predicting 10 years.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2468
Location: Bucharest, Romania
revolution wrote:
Yes, the computers of today are the supercomputers of yesteryear. So we already have supercomputers in front of us.
Nope, they are much smaller. I wasn't talking about their performance, but about their efficiency (i.e how big they are). For example, some of these "new" ones require advanced forms of cooling (like some vid cards), like watercooling for example, which wasn't used in the past (in fact, even passive was enough for really old processors!!!).

This is obviously what I said before: new computers are only 'better' as long as they are not bigger or waste more power/heat...

revolution wrote:
Remember these words: We will have commodity petabox-capable computers available cheaply to the public in the future (i.e. they will be a standard PC for that era). I'm predicting 10 years.
Why so sure? Intel already had to change the transistor design for 45nm, which was a "wall" so to speak. This is bad because they did this 'research' for like... 5 years. Beyond 5nm it will be practically impossible to gain any performance -- unless you use extreme voltages to prevent the "quantum tunneling" (you can't beat physics), but then again this proves my previous point: our computers won't 'improve', they'll turn into supercomputers!

Performance is not an improvement. Efficiency (power/heat wasted (and some would say, physical size of the computer) ratio to performance) shows the actual improvement.

If we'll need bigger computers or extreme voltages in the future, because we can't go lower than 5nm, then we'll not have computers anymore, but supercomputers...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 09 Feb 2009, 20:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16734
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Who says that the transistor has to keep being made if silicon? This wall you talk about can be broken with other technology, maybe carbon nanotubes will be it, maybe something else. All of these same arguments (about "walls") are made over and over throughout the years and yet somehow they still manage to keep being surpassed. I'm saying we've got al least 10 more years of it until such physics limits become genuinely reached.

Computers are considerably more efficient than previous generations. MIPS/mW has steadily improved. Just compare at the old ENIAC and a current laptop! Or take any previous design, even from 5 years ago compared to today. Much much more efficient. If I take my current crappy old laptop into a time machine and go back 20 years it would be the fastest computer on the planet (and only using ~30 watts at full speed). Very very efficient.
Post 10 Feb 2009, 02:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.