Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:45:24 -0500 From: "Grant M." <gmongardi at napc.com> Robert L Krawitz wrote: > I'm posting here, though, to query why the heck a company needs to > store a terabyte or more of *anything*. > > Think about a financial services company that issues credit cards, and > they need to store data on every single transaction for years. They > *absolutely* need that backup. We actually have a large number of clients with MUCH more than a terabyte of data. These are some of the largest advertising agencies and print/media houses in the world. With high-res photography and artwork costing thousands of dollars each to produce, and images ranging in size from 50megs to 500megs each, this adds up quickly. Most of our customers have at least a TB of data online, multiple TB nearline (in the tape library), as well as multiple TB offline (tapes on a shelf). The only practical solution are LTO or AIT-4 for disaster recovery and AIT-3/4 or DLT for nearline/offline storage. Agreed, 1 terabyte is small change these days. There are a lot of different ways of reaching this scale of data size, be it high resolution photographs, video, detailed transaction data, denormalized transaction data (to speed up processing), geophysical data, etc. And I agree about photographs -- high resolution scans really do take up a lot of data. I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED. At 4000 DPI and 16 bit depth, 35 mm scans are typically in the 110 MB range; medium format scans at that resolution would be in the 500 MB range or so, depending upon the precise format. 6 megapixel JPEG files have their place, but there's a lot more to digital photography than that...
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |