If you have like 1-2 petabytes of data to upload to amazaon, sure, they have that special truck you can use. Otherwise, 200tb, i think it would be faster to upload it rather than travel to their offices.
And dont forget its only going to get even faster. Whilst the media isnt going to get bigger at the same rate.
You do know its much safer and much more highly available to store it in a cloud rather than a piece of plastic, right?
In a cloud you get it raided on multiple sites, etc… obv. Depends on how much you pay.
Dont forget that CDs in their best of best conditions had a lifetime of merely 10 years. Dont know how much this new media holds with such density…
I’m not saying you don’t own the data, I’m saying it’s more expensive than storing it yourself. Obviously it depends on the purpose and budget; if you need it to be highly available and secure, and you have thousands of dollars to direct to the project, the cloud is great. If you want to make a backup of all your DVDs that fits on a single disc, it might be overkill.
The sort of data suited to discs like this is probably pretty different than the sort of data suited to an S3 bucket. It could make a decent tertiary backup though, a local copy of your data stored on offline media can be a lifesaver.
This isn’t a competing technology to the cloud, it’s complimentary.
Yea just store data on very trustworthy servers like google and Microsoft who would never sell your asscheekprint to their 783 partners for advertising anoNymOuSly
I think its still usless imo.
200TB, I can literally put this in a single S3 bucket.
Physical media in my opinion is outdated.
You can give it to Amazon, so physical media is useless? Seriously?
I do see flaws with this much data density on an optical disc, mainly physical damage, but physical media will always have it’s place.
If you have like 1-2 petabytes of data to upload to amazaon, sure, they have that special truck you can use. Otherwise, 200tb, i think it would be faster to upload it rather than travel to their offices.
And dont forget its only going to get even faster. Whilst the media isnt going to get bigger at the same rate.
Whatever happened to actually keeping your own data instead of entrusting a megacorporation which puts profit over everything else with it.
Why store data on media when you can pay the price of a sizable mortgage payment for someone else to store it for you?
You do know its much safer and much more highly available to store it in a cloud rather than a piece of plastic, right? In a cloud you get it raided on multiple sites, etc… obv. Depends on how much you pay. Dont forget that CDs in their best of best conditions had a lifetime of merely 10 years. Dont know how much this new media holds with such density…
And you do own the data, read the contracts.
I’m not saying you don’t own the data, I’m saying it’s more expensive than storing it yourself. Obviously it depends on the purpose and budget; if you need it to be highly available and secure, and you have thousands of dollars to direct to the project, the cloud is great. If you want to make a backup of all your DVDs that fits on a single disc, it might be overkill.
The sort of data suited to discs like this is probably pretty different than the sort of data suited to an S3 bucket. It could make a decent tertiary backup though, a local copy of your data stored on offline media can be a lifesaver.
This isn’t a competing technology to the cloud, it’s complimentary.
Unless you physical control your media, you don’t own your data.
Yea just store data on very trustworthy servers like google and Microsoft who would never sell your asscheekprint to their 783 partners for advertising anoNymOuSly