December 9, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
If the promise of quantum computing is realised, a great deal of data might be stored in a series of superimposed states. It may not be an exaggeration to say all the existing data storage on the planet might be stored on a single small quantum storage device.It's hard enough to sell the public the idea of storing their personal data in the cloud. Now try convincing them that trans-dimensional data storage is safe.
Nearly infinite computing power and storage, at a nearly negligible cost?
It'll sell itself, old egg!
December 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Ok, what are the cost ranges for
SQL Server Data
Other Data
Video Data
what other data types do you track?
412-977-3526 call/text
December 9, 2015 at 7:09 pm
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
If the promise of quantum computing is realised, a great deal of data might be stored in a series of superimposed states. It may not be an exaggeration to say all the existing data storage on the planet might be stored on a single small quantum storage device.It's hard enough to sell the public the idea of storing their personal data in the cloud. Now try convincing them that trans-dimensional data storage is safe.
Nearly infinite computing power and storage, at a nearly negligible cost?
It'll sell itself, old egg!
Are our laws and contracts even enforcable in a parallel universe?
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 10, 2015 at 3:09 am
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
If the promise of quantum computing is realised, a great deal of data might be stored in a series of superimposed states. It may not be an exaggeration to say all the existing data storage on the planet might be stored on a single small quantum storage device.It's hard enough to sell the public the idea of storing their personal data in the cloud. Now try convincing them that trans-dimensional data storage is safe.
Nearly infinite computing power and storage, at a nearly negligible cost?
It'll sell itself, old egg!
Are our laws and contracts even enforcable in a parallel universe?
With the trouble lawmakers have just on this planet in a single jurisdiction there is little chance of reasonable international computing laws and no chance that any law written with be able to handle quantum mechanics.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
December 10, 2015 at 4:57 am
Gary Varga (12/10/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
If the promise of quantum computing is realised, a great deal of data might be stored in a series of superimposed states. It may not be an exaggeration to say all the existing data storage on the planet might be stored on a single small quantum storage device.It's hard enough to sell the public the idea of storing their personal data in the cloud. Now try convincing them that trans-dimensional data storage is safe.
Nearly infinite computing power and storage, at a nearly negligible cost?
It'll sell itself, old egg!
Are our laws and contracts even enforcable in a parallel universe?
With the trouble lawmakers have just on this planet in a single jurisdiction there is little chance of reasonable international computing laws and no chance that any law written with be able to handle quantum mechanics.
I thought that the problem with quantum storage is that you only know if it is there is when you look for it. :unsure:
December 10, 2015 at 5:40 am
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
Are our laws and contracts even enforcable in a parallel universe?
If it's a parallel universe, then there would be no intersection, right? Ergo, with no way for our jurisdiction to overlap, the obvious answer would be "No."
😉
December 10, 2015 at 5:43 am
Yet Another DBA (12/10/2015)
I thought that the problem with quantum storage is that you only know if it is there is when you look for it. :unsure:
I believe you're confusing quantum storage with the Heisenberg Backup System.
December 10, 2015 at 5:55 am
xsevensinzx (12/9/2015)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/9/2015)
william-700725 (12/9/2015)
I would suggest that the growth in the volume of data stored does not reflect a growth in actual information.If you look, how much of that growth is a result of our Xerox mentality? We make endless copies of the same data, sharing it out, stashing copies here and there just in case, sometimes rearranging it for yet another effort at divining information from it. For example, even with the huge volume of sales transactions taking place every day, there is a finite amount of actual information generated by those transactions, and it is orders of magnitude smaller than the massive volume of data generated, passed around and archived by the stores, banks, credit-card vendors, fraud-detection services, Department of Treasury, and whatever other parties I haven't thought of.
The other driving factor is our collective obsession with the idea that all data has value and should be preserved until we can find a way to derive that value. The harsh reality is that most of what we are preserving is as full of noise as surveillance video -- minutes (or mere seconds) of key information buried in thousands of hours of the camera watching people do ordinary things.
Stop and imagine for a moment how long you could get people to sit and nod their heads to a straight-faced presentation about the value of a sensor-enhanced Roomba which would map how much lint and dust was pulled from each square inch of the room and relay that data to a cloud-based cleaning analysis service using highly optimized proprietary algorithms to generate an adaptive optimized route for cleaning your house. Then think about how much of our data is about as vital as ( room, x, y, dustballsize ).
I don't have fundamental problems with gathering some of this data. Now keeping it, that's perhaps something we don't want to do. However we are still learning here. What do we keep and for how long?
That's generally the problem I run into. Every business user wants to keep all the data forever regardless if the data is used or not. It's the perception it's there when they need it and that's what we pay for.
I feel as database professionals, we have to be firm in these areas about data storage to the point of losing our jobs. We have to make it clear that, "No, we cannot just store a billion records to just store it..."
Then again, that's why alternatives to the traditional RDBMS are becoming popular. The cost per TB for NoSQL solutions is a lot less expensive than say, SQL Server. Storing more and more data in SQL Server does not scale well compared to others where you have the added benefit of distributed processing across multiple machines.
There are very few things that I feel compelled enough to "be firm" to the point of losing my job, and this is definitely not one of them. On the other hand, I have a good track record of being able to convince folks that there are more useful ways to spend their money than hoarding every record.
As to the costs for storage in different formats, and claims that the valueless volume could be stored more efficiently, that strikes me as more akin to Churchill's legendary conversation with a socialite than "standing firm" on professional principles or standards.
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."
December 10, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Yet Another DBA (12/10/2015)
Gary Varga (12/10/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
Eric M Russell (12/9/2015)
GoofyGuy (12/9/2015)
If the promise of quantum computing is realised, a great deal of data might be stored in a series of superimposed states. It may not be an exaggeration to say all the existing data storage on the planet might be stored on a single small quantum storage device.It's hard enough to sell the public the idea of storing their personal data in the cloud. Now try convincing them that trans-dimensional data storage is safe.
Nearly infinite computing power and storage, at a nearly negligible cost?
It'll sell itself, old egg!
Are our laws and contracts even enforcable in a parallel universe?
With the trouble lawmakers have just on this planet in a single jurisdiction there is little chance of reasonable international computing laws and no chance that any law written with be able to handle quantum mechanics.
I thought that the problem with quantum storage is that you only know if it is there is when you look for it. :unsure:
That goes for conventional backups; you only know for sure it's there, if and when you attempt to look for it.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm
malcolm.gray (12/9/2015)
" However as humans, we will create multiple exabytes (EB) of data this year, an order of magnitude beyond the PB"Actually I thought a exabytes where 3 (decimal) orders of magnitude more....
We mostly work in binary, so maybe it is 30 not 3. But maybe Steve was working in base 1000 (since he's thinking of vast quantities of data that sees reasonable) and in that case 1 was correct.
Basically "order of magnitude", unless qualified, is so vague that it means whatever the speaker/writer wants it to, and whatever the listener/reader wants it to, and when the two menings are not the same it will create misunderstanding and/or conflict.
Tom
Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply