Data Storage in the Future ::ATTN GEEKS::

indiriverflow · Feb 26, 2009

My WIP takes place about forty years in the future, to allow for the development of the computer technology at the heart of my premise.

Storage devices are rapidly evolving. This may not always be the case, but the trend ought to continue.

What will storage technology be like in 40 years? Will RAM still be a term in use? What will hard drives be called, and how might they be designed?

How about transfer storage devices? We've had the floppy, the hard floppy, CD, flash, optical and others I'm forgetting. What will this technology look like and what might it be called?

Finally, the computer in question is based on quantum processors, and fortunately, this is already in the embryonic stage. The basic unit of quantum storage is the qu-byte. According to my research (thanks Wiki!), the largest prefix for expressing orders of byte is Yottabyte 10[SUP]24[/SUP]. How would I say this? Yottaqubyte...ugh!

Any idea what would be larger than this if the pattern is followed?

I have more questions, but this will do for now. Thanks for all your answers.

dpaterso · Feb 27, 2009

It's going to be wireless, and it's going to be part of you, like maybe a fingernail, or an ear stud, or an injected micro-capsule. You'll walk into a room or a building and be auto-connected, able to upload/download/browse at will. No one will even think in terms of storage or RAM any more because unlimited capacity will be available to everyone, everywhere. Even now, you can get free mailboxes that hold 7Gb or more. That's just going to go up and up until numbers mean nothing except to the uber-techies who maintain the infinite server ocean (ISO).

-Derek

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

dpaterso said:
It's going to be wireless, and it's going to be part of you, like maybe a fingernail, or an ear stud, or an injected micro-capsule. You'll walk into a room or a building and be auto-connected, able to upload/download/browse at will. No one will even think in terms of storage or RAM any more because unlimited capacity will be available to everyone, everywhere. Even now, you can get free mailboxes that hold 7Gb or more. That's just going to go up and up until numbers mean nothing except to the uber-techies who maintain the infinite server ocean (ISO).

-Derek

Okay, but the trend has been for the complexity and operating bytes of software to rise, if anything, more quickly than the hardware. The more capacity, the more you'll need.

I'm not talking about personal computing so much as servers. As we all know, there is no such thing as unlimited storage, processor use, or bandwidth on a server. These won't be serving the net, but what I will somewhat inaccurately call AI's for the purpose of brevity.

The functions of storage, processing, and temporary memory seem basic to computing to me. I can't really imagine how it could be built without it.

I mean, that's been constant for the past forty years of computing. What kind of paradigm shift would override these functions?

Fullback · Feb 27, 2009

A three-dimensional memory with Z axis depth more than current cd/dvd pit depths. Perhaps some form of enclosed gaseous or liquid medium with extraordinary capacity.

We're just scratching the surface to store and retrieve data, literally and figuratively.

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

Fullback, tell me more!

dpaterso · Feb 27, 2009

indiriverflow said:
Okay, but the trend has been for the complexity and operating bytes of software to rise, if anything, more quickly than the hardware. The more capacity, the more you'll need.

I'm not talking about personal computing so much as servers. As we all know, there is no such thing as unlimited storage, processor use, or bandwidth on a server. These won't be serving the net, but what I will somewhat inaccurately call AI's for the purpose of brevity.

The functions of storage, processing, and temporary memory seem basic to computing to me. I can't really imagine how it could be built without it.

I mean, that's been constant for the past forty years of computing. What kind of paradigm shift would override these functions?

I disagree. Going back 40 years, 1 kay of RAM wouldn't fit in your purse. Right now I'm sitting with a 1 Terabyte external drive alongside my laptop. That's your paradigm shift right there.

We're riding the crest of an exponential tech development wave that just isn't going to stop. 40 years from now there will be, to all intents and purposes, unlimited storage, unlimited bandwidth and unlimited networking. Bet you 5 bucks, with compound interest.

-Derek

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

dpaterso said:
I disagree. Going back 40 years, 1 kay of RAM wouldn't fit in your purse. Right now I'm sitting with a 1 Terabyte external drive sitting beside my laptop. That's your paradigm shift right there.

We're riding the crest of an exponential tech development wave that just isn't going to stop. 40 years from now there will be, to all intents and purposes, unlimited storage, unlimited bandwidth and unlimited networking. Bet you 5 bucks, with compound interest.

-Derek

I might take that bet. Five dollars, even with compound interest, will be toilet paper. I bet the dollar doesn't even last that long.
Um...what's the rate of interest?

BTW, I'm setting it that far because that's how long I think it will take for this technology to be invented under ideal conditions. I could slide the timeline, but I'd have to be convinced by some uber-geeks.

I think its safe to speculate four decades ahead on this.

Fullback · Feb 27, 2009

indiriverflow said:
Fullback, tell me more!

I'm just brainstorming with you now.

What if we moved ahead by moving backward to a form of contextual analog data system, with far more data embedded than recompiling zeros and ones? The medium is a man-made compound with a structure where each molecule retains eight data points in eight atoms to form a more cohesive and connected information point.

As data is learned (accessed in unison with associated data), the molecules drift closer in 3-D space for faster recovery and also to be accessed if they are related to the original data search. It's like lateral thinking. We can use the close molecules or discard them if not necessary. The data is "thinking" by associating close data. It's like our data is saying "Oh, by the way, you should think about B and C if your thinking about A." The data itself is smart.

The smart data is embedded and recovered by 3 triangulated constant light sources that use diffused light instead of lasers and address each molecule by another embedded "locater atom."

My head hurts now, but I can see it in my tiny, little brain.

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

Fullback said:
I'm just brainstorming with you now.

What if we moved ahead by moving backward to a form of contextual analog data system, with far more data embedded than recompiling zeros and ones? The medium is a man-made compound with a structure where each molecule retains eight data points in eight atoms to form a more cohesive and connected information point.

As data is learned (accessed in unison with associated data), the molecules drift closer in 3-D space for faster recovery and also to be accessed if they are related to the original data search. It's like lateral thinking. We can use the close molecules or discard them if not necessary. The data is "thinking" by associating close data. It's like our data is saying "Oh, by the way, you should think about B and C if your thinking about A." The data itself is smart.

The smart data is embedded and recovered by 3 triangulated constant light sources that use diffused light instead of lasers and address each molecule by another embedded "locater atom."

My head hurts now, but I can see it in my tiny, little brain.

Hot! I was just talking about this with my friend and hoping you'd pipe back in.
This is exactly what I have in mind. What if the code is actually quinary, to represent DNA (four bases and a stop)?

Fullback · Feb 27, 2009

Why not? I think that's a great idea.

I feel like I understand what you're after, and we haven't even included any "plus alpha" into this yet. We're still talking about things within the realm of our knowledge and imagination. We haven't included some magic bullet discovery of fundamental physics that we have no clue of right now.

I think you have the seed of an idea now.

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

Fun stuff!

I agree with Derek - no worries on capacity, definitely. You are correct about software complexity, but also remember that new algorithm/software design issues are changing, too.

I say no imbeddings, etc though, due to the FDA, seriously (40 years). Incredible portability? Yes. Visor-type things for screens, and mind-control inputs are the rage in research, but I question the everyday-wearability of the visors, seriously. Will Blackberry-hand turn into visored addicts? Eh, maybe?

There will be entirely new names for transfer devices... very fast and small and wireless (new technology there, for sure). There will still be transfer devices, because people like buying their own brand of phone/media player/pda/portable PC that needs to coordinate with the one at work, their friends', etc.

There will be no hard drives or RAM as we know them. Sorry, but they've been working on new hardware theories for computers since computers were invented (quantum, biological, etc). New operating systems will handle new hardware, so while there will be analagous ideas for temporary processing, etc, throw away your notions of how things are separated/grouped/named now.

I'd love to get you some tidbits of what it actually being invented, if you like

But are you going for what has been begun in actuality, or just what kinds of ideas there are?

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

Brontobyte, geopbyte

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

backslashbaby said:
Fun stuff!

I agree with Derek - no worries on capacity, definitely. You are correct about software complexity, but also remember that new algorithm/software design issues are changing, too.

I say no imbeddings, etc though, due to the FDA, seriously (40 years). Incredible portability? Yes. Visor-type things for screens, and mind-control inputs are the rage in research, but I question the everyday-wearability of the visors, seriously. Will Blackberry-hand turn into visored addicts? Eh, maybe?

There will be entirely new names for transfer devices... very fast and small and wireless (new technology there, for sure). There will still be transfer devices, because people like buying their own brand of phone/media player/pda/portable PC that needs to coordinate with the one at work, their friends', etc.

There will be no hard drives or RAM as we know them. Sorry, but they've been working on new hardware theories for computers since computers were invented (quantum, biological, etc). New operating systems will handle new hardware, so while there will be analagous ideas for temporary processing, etc, throw away your notions of how things are separated/grouped/named now.

I'd love to get you some tidbits of what it actually being invented, if you like But are you going for what has been begun in actuality, or just what kinds of ideas there are?

You may think of it as is a virtual environment for AI's. That's only partially true, but it will cover it for now.

I am interested in making plausible projections about the evolution of this technology-so long as it serves the needs of my story.

How much data in a brontobyte or geopbyte? Any etymology you'd care to supply there?

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

So not so much consumer focus then, I see. What you and Fullback were discussing sounds like a great start at the underlying architecture. I'll readily admit, other than what I've read in research, my personal knowledge starts more at the machine language stage and up.

AI for a general technology, or more specialized? Don't worry, I'm way geekier than I sound (well, I'm posh-degreed in AI/computing, in any case

)

Edit: I'm only more curious on the use of the AI because different technologies are better suited to AI than others....

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

backslashbaby said:
So not so much consumer focus then, I see. What you and Fullback were discussing sounds like a great start at the underlying architecture. I'll readily admit, other than what I've read in research, my personal knowledge starts more at the machine language stage and up.

AI for a general technology, or more specialized? Don't worry, I'm way geekier than I sound (well, I'm posh-degreed in AI/computing, in any case )

Edit: I'm only more curious on the use of the AI because different technologies are better suited to AI than others....

Let's just say for now that the primary purpose of these AI's is to live and work as we do. Think of the server as a city.

And to avoid confusion, the premise is that these entities are every bit as self-aware as we are. Also, most are not true AI's, but we can deal with them as if they were.

Your geek credentials are accepted. Anyone who uses a computer and thinks is very welcome to contribute.

I don't believe that leaves anyone out.

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

Yeah, very cool! So the links I'm thinking of on new research might be relevent. I'll gather them up...

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

Something I need to settle, right this minute, is if data transfer will truly be wireless, or if we might still see a cable for downloads of huge files.

I sort of agree with the wireless comments above, except that these are huge files being downloaded, so I wondered if anyone thought that might still require a cable. Perhaps for security reasons?

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

It would always be more secure via a cable, IMHO, but encryption can make any data transfer pretty darned strong.

Here is an interesting, albeit older, press release for wireless technology: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?id=1431

Reading these abstracts should be interesting, too:
http://www.mtt-tpms.org/cgi-bin/symposia_v4/technicalprogram.cgi?Symposium_Name=IMS2008

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

I think I'm going with the cable, because it adds a layer of security for the file transfer, which is extremely sensitive.

Seems like there is no way to hack a box which is never online...just hooked physically to the source. Except physically, which is what is going on now. Better for the narrative if this is as tough as conceivably possible.

Next issue: redundancy.

This creates complications, because I'm not sure about backup. Things get complicated if there are duplicates of my cyber-people. I sort of want to dispense with these by means of a legal caveat-that these files may not legally be duplicated. This makes more sense than it might seem.

This seems the best way to deal with the issue...make the files unique by proprietary copyright law, and then have someone break the law if I for some reason want a dupe.

So how can the integrity of the files be guaranteed without a backup?

Maybe I'll just swallow it and allow inactive archives only on the backup.

Sorry for thinking aloud in the thread, I'm in process right now and very absorbed in the story.

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

Would it suit your purposes to have the files split apart and encrypted in separate parts/locations, or is that still too much of a duplicate out there, I wonder...

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

backslashbaby said:
Would it suit your purposes to have the files split apart and encrypted in separate parts/locations, or is that still too much of a duplicate out there, I wonder...

Maybe...that might get interesting. Then I can have a subplot where all the different pieces have to be put together, say three in physically separated DC's. Like a treasure hunt to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Hmmm...you give me possibilities to gnaw on.

Lovin' it.

50 Foot Ant · Feb 27, 2009

Well, let me drag out my old sci-fi cyberpunk novel, and maybe this will help you...

Packet: Undisclosed amount of data, a singular "packet" over the high data stream above room temperature superconductor hard lines.
Wave: Wireless systems. Can handle Mid-function web immersion. A Wave is an undisclosed amount of data.

5 P/1 W

Standard transmission rate: 1P/ms (1 packet per millisecond) 1W/ms (1 Wave per millisecond) with transmission lengths varying.

Attack Program, Wireless: 2.5 Waves in size, extremely small, meant to be transmitted in approximately 2.5 milliseconds, used for a fast, light attack to test/crack the intrusion countermeasure coding. (ICC) 0.5 Packets in size for the same program, meaning that someone fighting via Wave VS someone fighting VS packets is going to be at a disadvantage.

Portable Memory:

Packet-Stick: 1-5 Mp (1-5 million Packets) About the size of a small chemlight
Wave-Chip: 1-3 KW chip used in portable computers, about the size of a nickle, but often carried in a 4-8 pack "wave-card"

OK, DON'T try to use modern terms. You WILL lose. I reread a science fiction piece where the author was talking about a totally new "CPU" that was up to 10x the speed of the common 256MHz chip. This was 100 years in the future.

Any time you try to make your book seem more advanced, real technology will catch up, kick you in the face, and blow right by you, leaving your book dated.

Make up new terms, but WRITE THEM DOWN so that they are solid through the whole book/series. Introduce new technology as logical progressions. Some of these may be a big deal, others will be grabbed without a second thought.

Trying to figure out data-storage in the future is a losing game.

Just look at the advertisement for the hard drive I have pinned to the wall...

"15 Mb!!! All the storage you will EVER need in the smallest package ever!"

I have a smaller, faster, and larger capacity thumb drive that's bullet-proof and high encryption. (Iron-Key)

indiriverflow · Feb 27, 2009

50 Foot Ant said:
Well, let me drag out my old sci-fi cyberpunk novel, and maybe this will help you...

Packet: Undisclosed amount of data, a singular "packet" over the high data stream above room temperature superconductor hard lines.
Wave: Wireless systems. Can handle Mid-function web immersion. A Wave is an undisclosed amount of data.

5 P/1 W

Standard transmission rate: 1P/ms (1 packet per millisecond) 1W/ms (1 Wave per millisecond) with transmission lengths varying.

Attack Program, Wireless: 2.5 Waves in size, extremely small, meant to be transmitted in approximately 2.5 milliseconds, used for a fast, light attack to test/crack the intrusion countermeasure coding. (ICC) 0.5 Packets in size for the same program, meaning that someone fighting via Wave VS someone fighting VS packets is going to be at a disadvantage.

Portable Memory:

Packet-Stick: 1-5 Mp (1-5 million Packets) About the size of a small chemlight
Wave-Chip: 1-3 KW chip used in portable computers, about the size of a nickle, but often carried in a 4-8 pack "wave-card"

OK, DON'T try to use modern terms. You WILL lose. I reread a science fiction piece where the author was talking about a totally new "CPU" that was up to 10x the speed of the common 256MHz chip. This was 100 years in the future.

Any time you try to make your book seem more advanced, real technology will catch up, kick you in the face, and blow right by you, leaving your book dated.

Make up new terms, but WRITE THEM DOWN so that they are solid through the whole book/series. Introduce new technology as logical progressions. Some of these may be a big deal, others will be grabbed without a second thought.

Trying to figure out data-storage in the future is a losing game.

Just look at the advertisement for the hard drive I have pinned to the wall...

"15 Mb!!! All the storage you will EVER need in the smallest package ever!"

I have a smaller, faster, and larger capacity thumb drive that's bullet-proof and high encryption. (Iron-Key)

Good info and good points.
You're right about not being able to peg the future...that would be hopeless. Personally, I'm not sure my premise will become a reality at all, although scientists are certainly laying the groundwork for it.

So what I'm shooting for is plausible projection rather than predictive accuracy. Trying to be a storyteller, not a prophet.

Already decided CPU is on the way out, am using "core" or "processor" instead.

You think I should invent my own data-metric terms instead of trying to project from today's terms? I dig what you are saying, but it seems like there ought to be a logic rooted in the way we speak today. Besides, I'd like the readers to recognize the basic function of hardware and software in their own terms.

In some ways, that might be a higher production value than hard science that only engineers can appreciate anyway.

Plausibility...that delicate balance of sounding sincere while spewing bullshit in the reader's face.

50 Foot Ant · Feb 27, 2009

indiriverflow said:
You think I should invent my own data-metric terms instead of trying to project from today's terms? I dig what you are saying, but it seems like there ought to be a logic rooted in the way we speak today. Besides, I'd like the readers to recognize the basic function of hardware and software in their own terms.

Crap, I forgot my cheat. LOL

OK, yeah, I used wave and packet, but they pretty much corresponded to the (then) state of the art tech at the time, only taken back two steps.

Right now 1TB drives are available, SATA for high speed data transmission.

You have it be a 1Gp (gigapacket) or 1Mp (Mega-Packet) drive. Use the common knowledge, but just replace it with your new terms. It's fairly easy for the reader to understand.

If you have the video card able to render "11 multi-facet objects per milli-second" you can explain why it is SOTA or junk. Say the main character snorts and realizes that the "chat rooms" he hangs out in has at least 20 mfO's in it, and that everyone would flicker and it would annoy him. Or think to himself that even the heavy duty databases only have 7 mfO's in them, and the card is definitely SOTA, maybe even out of Pakistan or Isreal.

Most people can recognise the lingo, and compare it. They'll realize that a packet is larger than a byte (on my cheat-sheet, I decided a packet was about 100Mb in size), as long as you explain it.

Hopes this helps.

backslashbaby · Feb 27, 2009

Good stuff there!

IBM prefixes are for 1024 Yottabytes = 1 Brontobyte and 1024 Brontobytes = 1 Geopbyte. To the best of my knowledge, no standardized prefix goes above Yotta/Yobi yet

Data Storage in the Future ::ATTN GEEKS::

indiriverflow

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

indiriverflow

Fullback

indiriverflow

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

indiriverflow

Fullback

indiriverflow

Fullback

backslashbaby

*

backslashbaby

*

indiriverflow

backslashbaby

*

indiriverflow

backslashbaby

*

indiriverflow

backslashbaby

*

indiriverflow

backslashbaby

*

indiriverflow

50 Foot Ant

indiriverflow

50 Foot Ant

backslashbaby

*

Data Storage in the Future ::ATTN GEEKS::

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

~~~~*~~~~

*

*

*

*

*

*

*