"Storage is only the beginning"

[Rodent of Unusual Size]

And that is just *online* storage.  How about HSM offline archives?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FWD: Would You Believe?
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:32:41 -0400
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
To: interest@another.pothole.com


Message-Id:  <5.1.0.14.2.20010724184927.0498dd78@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
Date:  Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:49:36 -0400
From:  David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject:  IP: Would You Believe?

>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:54:46 -0400
>From: "Tice F. DeYoung" <tdeyoung@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Would You Believe?
>
>Dave,
>
>    Here's an interesting tidbit that is pretty incredible.  For IP if you 
> want it.
>
>Tice
>
> From RoFC newsletter:
>
>". . .in 1995, according to the
>June Gilder Technology Report (www.gildertech.com 
><http://www.gildertech.com> ),
>all the computers in all the world contained a
>total of 200 terabytes of storage.
>
>This month -- just six years later, the advent of commodity ($300)
>100-gigabyte drives means that just 2,000 PCs could contain
>the world's storage of 1995.   (There are about
>ten exabytes of storage overall all at this point in time --
>"half-a-millionfold growth in less than a decade."  IDC estimates that
>the data stored by companies is growing at 80% per year -
>
>         http://www.networkcomputing.com/1205/1205f1.html
>
>Looking forward, considering IBM's projections for .4-terabyte "Pixie
>Dust" drives in 2003, then take a mere 50 PCs to match all the storage,
>in all the world, of just eight years before.  And we can expect
>that trend to continue.
>"
>So does anyone think we need all this stuff?  Looks like just
>large amount of clutter.  But I guess that's the way folks are.
>Oh, wait, I forgot about the requirements for the new OS and
>integrated apps, this may not be enough.
>
>Also, I guess we'll all need to get to 64-bit PC OSs since our current
>ones are 32-bit (and can only handle 2.2 TB of data).