![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Icosebyte is equal to 1,024 domegemegrottebytes
Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.
"In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size disk drives would require one million city block-size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined" - needs to be changed to the US states. I also would prefer an actual size rather than a metaphor.
Also: "The total amount of data that could be stored in the observable universe using each of the 1078 to 1082 atoms as single bits of information (using their spin for example) is between 1.25×1053 to 1.25×1057 yottabytes.[5] It would take up to 1.47×1064 years (over one million trillion trillion trillion trillion times the current age of the universe) for a single Samsung 970 pro SSD to write such an amount of data.[6]" - the examples section should be edited for an encyclopaedic format + proper grammar and punctuation.
By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. ( talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why does the binary approximation need citation? The suffix may not be in common usage at this point, but it doesn't seem hard to imagine that future computers manufactured and described will have exactly that amount (1024^8) of addressable memory. Once we have that amount, considering precedent, common terminology will unlikely match the unambiguous SI term. This may be a bit crystal ball, but I don't think the world is likely to change that much between now, and when a yottabyte is feasibly and usefully attainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.2 ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent "you suck" and derogatory comments were integrated into the article.... I blanked and then reverted the page, therefore removing the offending comments. ---Your friendly neighborhood 24.238.177.246-
"The term "macabtyte" refers to a storage unit used on Apple computers. It appears larger, is in fact smaller but considerably more expensive than the equivalent PC storage unit. Macabytes have a glowing Apple printed on each byte." -- based on some google searching there is no such thing. This looks better fit for uncyclopedia than wikipedia. I am gonna remove it. - 96-35-10-239.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com July 7 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.239 ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude, Google isn't always right, you Apple biggot. (You had to GOOGLE that? What a lamer. How's the pocket protector?) ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Obvious vandalism occurring, I suggest that the page gets locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.239 ( talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does someone want this page on the "Votes for deletion" page?? --Anon
I removed the statement:
Unless I'm greatly mistaken, this is nonsense. A mole is a gram-molecular weight, and bytes do not have a molecular weight. The article on mole says:
Bytes are not a substance. It is not meaningful to speak of "a mole of bytes." Even if it were, it is not at all clear to me how one can derive the stated figure.
If someone wants to reinsert the above statement I request that they give an explanation on this talk page of the meaning of the phrase "a mole of bytes" and that they summarize the calculation that shows that a yottabyte = 2.01 moles. -- Dpbsmith 04:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for Brontobyte. See Talk:SI prefix. -- Ian Cairns 23:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is a brontobyte?? (A link to this word was added to this article.) -- 66.245.99.179 23:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Brontobyte is covered in Non-SI unit prefix. — Omegatron 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) What on the face of earth is a Brontobyte anyway? Albertgenii12 ( talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a Brontobyte is just another big but undefined unit, just like a zillion for numbers. Wikiecam ( talk) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Brontobyte is 1024 yottabytes, but not (yet) official terminology... Go google for further links and information... 80.4.63.73 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the human body was 70% water. If this is true how can there be more oxygen than hydrogen?
This article shows a yottabyte as a nice, even number. But for smaller measurements, it doesn't work out that way. A kilobyte is 1,024 bytes, a megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes, a gigabyte is 1,073,741,824 bytes, and following that system, a yottabyte should be 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 bytes. I don't know if that's used for such big, theoretical numbers, though, so I didn't change anything. On a side note, what's the accepted way on Wikipedia to write large numbers? Is it 1,048,576 or 1 048 576? I personally prefer the first, but I'm not going to argue with the SI standard, or whoever determines that. -- Twilight Realm 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the entire state of an atom can be described in just 100 bytes. That number strikes me as beingr several orders of magnitude too low... of course with the uncertainty principle the state of an atom can never be fully described so the point is moot. Still it is an oddball arbitrary constant that makes the metaphor a little weird. Maybe it would be worthwhile to find a data structure that can be well-described. Asteron [[User_talk:Asteron|ノレツァ]] 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Any actul reason for the link to Yatta at the bottom of the page? That's just totally unrelated, right? 68.40.186.248 05:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is the bit about how many yottabytes it would take to store a human relevant whatsoever? It seems like a bit of useless trivia. Nothing wrong with trivia, but there is absolutely no logical connection whatsoever between yottabytes and human complexity. MOF 09:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In his 1995 book 'Physics of Star Trek', Prof Lawrence M Krauss looked at the difficulties involved in transporting a person in the manner suggested by Star Trek. He pointed out that the human body contained a Yottabyte of data to be transported. Writing in 1995 he also pointed out that to store this amount of data in 1995 would involve a pile of hard drives that "From Earth, you'd have to stack 100-gigabyte hard drives a third of the way to the center of the Milky Way or so to hold it all. And at current information transfer rates, it would take longer than the age of the universe to transmit that much data. " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/star-trek-movie-science/ Star Trek is of interest to a lot of people so I suggest this connection is hardly trivia. I'd also suggest that from a real world technological view, the example above shows just how data has condensed in the last twenty years and how it is likely to continue to do so. I've seen references to 1TB memory cards so suggest the example of Giza be reduced accordingly.-- Robata ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any super computers in a world that have atleast a yottabyte? I think that that would be a good thing to add to this article if there is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncusa367 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
It will be possible after, probably 50 years, when satellites have computers strong enough to transmitt stuff from Jupiter. Albertgenii12 ( talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the statement "It has been theorized that everything in the entire universe could be stored in one yottabyte of data."
For one thing, who is it that theorizes this? The user who put this in here? A scientist? A school teacher? Also, this statement has no meaning. A Yottabyte is a unit of binary storage, not matter. Assuming that the user meant that the entire universe could be described with one yottabyte of data, that user would have to be more specific. If one wants to digitally render a 3D environment of the entire universe, it would take a lot more than 1 yottabyte... a hell of a lot more. If one wanted a 1 kb description of every single atom in the universe then again, this would take up orders of magnitude more than a yottabyte. If however someone wanted a small description of every body in the universe larger than 4 grams, then perhaps a yottabyte would be adequate. It all depends. — oo64eva (Alex) ( U | T | C) @ 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Utah Governor Herbert on June 11, 2012 told the annual meeting of the National Governors' Association that the NSA's 1,500,000 square foot data center being built outside Salt Lake City will be the first facility to house a yottabyte of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.128.78 ( talk) 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
First reference predicts 1 Zettabyte of data by 2010. The second reference claims to predict 1 Yottabyte of data by 2010. Since the second reference is incomplete, conflicts with the first and looks like an error, I removed it. — Shinhan < talk > 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the claim. To reach a zettabyte by 2010 is feasible, a yottabyte is not, as it is way too much. Think about it, if all 1.5 billion Internet users had a 1 Terrabyte drive with all the disk space used up then that is only 1.5 zettabytes, WAY OFF the scale of a yottabyte. It may happen in 20 years however.-- 70.65.245.94 ( talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This article says "[a yottabyte] holds enough memory to record a [=one] humans entire life conversation" but the article on exabyte says that "Mark Liberman calculated the storage requirements for all human speech [i.e. "all words ever spoken by human beings"] at 42 zettabytes, if digitized as 16 kHz 16-bit audio" and that "a project at the UC Berkeley School of Information" calculated it at 5 exabytes, probably (says Liberman) "thinking of text". As the claim in this article is unsourced, I'm removing it altogether until someone finds a more credible and sourced estimate. 84.53.74.196 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that practically all of the descriptions of the separate measurement units ought to be folded under one or a few articles describing the measurement system as a whole. As in "Le Système International d'Unités"/"International System of Units", and perhaps an article on "Metric Prefixes" in addition. The separate concepts should perhaps be kept as redirections to the relevant article, or WikiMedia's search functionality should be augmented to with some sort of extra-topic tagging functionality to redirect searches for such terms into their proper location in the relevant page. Anyway, it seems to me pretty weird and unencyclopaedic to list terms such as this one as a separate article.
Secondly, even if nothing of the above sort is ever undertaken, I think it's plainly wrong to say that the binary suffixes have simply been "suggested". After all, following the links even now present in this very article, it's easy to see that IEEE -- one of the foremost standardisers in the world, in charge of standards like FireWire and Ethernet -- has formally, by ballot, accepted such suffixes as recognized nomenclature. Granted, IEEE does not have a UN mandate like ISO/IEC/ITU and the lot do. But nevertheless, it should be recognized as much in the computer science and electrical engineering field as, say ITU-T -- in actual fact the latter body's standardisation efforts tend to lead to technical practice that is theoretical, as opposed to its widely practical counterpart in IETF and IEEE practice.
Decoy ( talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article about a potential NSA data center with storage at the yottabyte level. Might be worth having in the article. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23231 — NMajdan• talk 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Another reference is in the 4/24/12 Network World issue article BackSpin by Mark Gibbs http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2012/042312-backspin.html Gorilla 70 ( talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the statement about the Utah Data Center should be removed or significantly toned down. The articles do not state a concrete plan for the data center to store or even process a yottabyte. Further discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Utah_Data_Center#Yottabytes.3F JedKBrown ( talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Section should be removed entirely, as it's patently ridiculous to even entertain the notion of a single yottabyte data center, much less one that can supposedly store multiple yottabytes. Buying enough hard drives to store that much information would both: bankrupt the entire world and take up, at minimum, if you used 4 terabyte hard drives stacked end to end and not including cabling, 120 square miles of space.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) quote: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. -end quote.
quote: The magnitude of the agency's data storage reserves at Bluffdale all but defy comprehension. And it appears even that capacity will meet only part of the NSA's needs." "...As a result of this “expanding array of theater airborne and other sensor networks,” as a 2007 Department of Defense report puts it, the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes of data." denverpost.com See also at examiner.com: "NSA $2 billion Utah-based facility can process yottabytes of information" and another quote: "Oak Ridge is home to the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and it’s engaged in a new secret war. But this time, instead of a bomb of almost unimaginable power, the weapon is a computer of almost unimaginable speed." ...and many other articles that address the various impossibility arguments presented here.
"Please no more Costco-like or 1 TB thumb-drive-comparison arguments." <- It's not a comparison just for comparison's sake, dude. It's literally what it would take to build one yottabyte of storage, given today's technology. Even if we give the government a little credit and say that they're working with 40 terabyte hard drives, which is ten times the storage available to the public on one hard drive, then they would still need 25 billion hard drives to store that much information. This isn't a case of "let's entertain the notion for argument's sake." This is a case of "there is no way to set up and manage a facility of that size with today's technology. Period. No arguments." A discussion of the data center itself isn't a problem, but discussing its supposed ability to store an amount of data that isn't feasible with current technology contributes absolutely nothing to said discussion.
Also, if you want more evidence of how ridiculous such an idea is, consider power consumption. You said the facility can give enough power to juice up 40,000 homes just by itself. Well let's just try some calculations here. A 4 terabyte, 7200 RPM drive from Hitachi draws 7.3 watts while idling. Multiply this by the 250 billion hard drives you would need in order to get 1 yottabyte, and that comes out to an average power draw while idle of 1,825,000,000,000 watts. If we convert this into more familiar units, then we get 1,825,000 megawatts. Now, there are 8,765 hours in a year. If we multiply this by our power draw, we get the total power draw for the drives if we were to run them 24/7/365, as they would be run in a data center. When we do this, we get 15,996,125,000 megawatt-hours in one year. For comparison's sake, the total annual electricity draw of the entire United States is only 3.88 billion MW-hrs/year. The entire world is 19.3 billion MW-hrs/year. Now do you see how patently ridiculous this whole thing is? The energy requirements fall a little bit short of what it takes to power "40,000 homes." To power *just the hard drives,* not including any cooling equipment, lights, anything else in the facility, would require 3/4s of the annual energy output of the entire world! And then some places want to scale that up to 2+ yottabytes? Do you see the problem here?
It seems interesting to me that ALL the xxxxabyte articles were created WAY back in 2001 when a Yottabyte must have seemed infeasible; yet now in 2010 it still exists but there is nothing beyond it. By now there should be names allocated for at LEAST two more orders higher, that is, to be proportional to what we had in 2001. I'm surprised this was never deleted. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The "binary usage" column of the table gives the impression that 1 YB = 2^80 bytes. No reference is cited for this use either in the template or in the yottabyte article. Indeed the yottabyte article does not even mention this use. The template needs to be edited to avoid giving this misleading impression. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 11:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could a link to the Dutch version be added?: nl:Yottabyte
WimOckham ( talk) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
What percentage of the internet is porn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.93 ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any information available on who named this unit and when? Does "yotta" come from "yotta,yotta, yotta," meaning blah,blah,blah? Or from iota? Or? 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 05:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What comes next after Yottabyte?
Are these candidates for next after Yottabyte real? Are there other names?
Xenottabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Shilentnobyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Domegemegrottebyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Icosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes
Monoicosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes.
https://twitter.com/verizonnews/status/553944360308719617?lang=en (That was the highest unit of data in use in 2015. Note, however, that he refers to not only the terms you used but also the two I mentioned. All 5 terms are real, but there is no named terms for anything more than a Monoicosebyte (Such as 1000/1024 Monoicosebytes). 24.127.197.176 ( talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What about tape storage. This article mentions Terabyte drives and microSD cards. How about how many data tapes would it take to make up one Yottabyte? Sure enough this bit of trivia would be useful for this article. As the hard drive and SD card analogy made it here. 66.188.81.70 ( talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size hard drives would require one million city block size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.[1] If 200 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to the public as of early 2015) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 800000 cubic meters, or the volume of 32 percent of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
Please can someone keep an eye on this section and update it as memory becomes more compressed? If they are Micros SDXC then it appears from
http://www.picstop.co.uk/memory-cards/sdxc-memory-card?page=3
that the capacity of publically available memory chips has doubled to 512GB. I presume that reduces the volume of space required to one sixth of the Great Pyramid? Robata ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found another link to 512GB https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/sd-cards/extremepro-sd-uhs-i. I've taken the liberty of reducing the size reference. Robata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC) My edit appears to have been removed. I have revised the paragraph to make the reason for its inclusion clearer, which is that the move from 1YB taking up an area the size of the Great Pyramid to that of mobile structures such as the Hindenburg (or twice the Titanic's footprint, or less than the largest cruise ships ( /info/en/?search=MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas) indicate that this previously unfathomably large amount of memory can in modern times be practically stored and used. If you want to make that point clearer, fine. But I think it needs making. Robata ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the decimal and binary meanings of 'terabyte' at Talk:Terabyte#Disputed_references. The discussion has possible implications for this page. If you wish to comment, please do so on the terabyte talk page. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 10:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delaware and Rhode Island are flat surfaces, and the Hindenburg was a three dimensional object - so not a direct comparison - and what proportion of people (particularly those living outside the US) would know the geographical areas or the volume. How many double-decker London buses' floor surfaces would the two figures equate to? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 17:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
On most (all?) of the SI data unit pages there is a reference to a Gamerbyte in the top right "multiples of bytes" table which is listed as "100,000,000,000,000,000 yobibyte" (commas added for clarity. I am not familiar with this SI / IEC term and a quick google confirms this is not a valid unit of measurement. Should this edit be deleted?
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Icosebyte is equal to 1,024 domegemegrottebytes
Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.
"In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size disk drives would require one million city block-size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined" - needs to be changed to the US states. I also would prefer an actual size rather than a metaphor.
Also: "The total amount of data that could be stored in the observable universe using each of the 1078 to 1082 atoms as single bits of information (using their spin for example) is between 1.25×1053 to 1.25×1057 yottabytes.[5] It would take up to 1.47×1064 years (over one million trillion trillion trillion trillion times the current age of the universe) for a single Samsung 970 pro SSD to write such an amount of data.[6]" - the examples section should be edited for an encyclopaedic format + proper grammar and punctuation.
By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. ( talk) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why does the binary approximation need citation? The suffix may not be in common usage at this point, but it doesn't seem hard to imagine that future computers manufactured and described will have exactly that amount (1024^8) of addressable memory. Once we have that amount, considering precedent, common terminology will unlikely match the unambiguous SI term. This may be a bit crystal ball, but I don't think the world is likely to change that much between now, and when a yottabyte is feasibly and usefully attainable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.183.2 ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Recent "you suck" and derogatory comments were integrated into the article.... I blanked and then reverted the page, therefore removing the offending comments. ---Your friendly neighborhood 24.238.177.246-
"The term "macabtyte" refers to a storage unit used on Apple computers. It appears larger, is in fact smaller but considerably more expensive than the equivalent PC storage unit. Macabytes have a glowing Apple printed on each byte." -- based on some google searching there is no such thing. This looks better fit for uncyclopedia than wikipedia. I am gonna remove it. - 96-35-10-239.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com July 7 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.239 ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude, Google isn't always right, you Apple biggot. (You had to GOOGLE that? What a lamer. How's the pocket protector?) ( talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Obvious vandalism occurring, I suggest that the page gets locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.10.239 ( talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does someone want this page on the "Votes for deletion" page?? --Anon
I removed the statement:
Unless I'm greatly mistaken, this is nonsense. A mole is a gram-molecular weight, and bytes do not have a molecular weight. The article on mole says:
Bytes are not a substance. It is not meaningful to speak of "a mole of bytes." Even if it were, it is not at all clear to me how one can derive the stated figure.
If someone wants to reinsert the above statement I request that they give an explanation on this talk page of the meaning of the phrase "a mole of bytes" and that they summarize the calculation that shows that a yottabyte = 2.01 moles. -- Dpbsmith 04:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please provide a reference for Brontobyte. See Talk:SI prefix. -- Ian Cairns 23:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is a brontobyte?? (A link to this word was added to this article.) -- 66.245.99.179 23:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Brontobyte is covered in Non-SI unit prefix. — Omegatron 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) What on the face of earth is a Brontobyte anyway? Albertgenii12 ( talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a Brontobyte is just another big but undefined unit, just like a zillion for numbers. Wikiecam ( talk) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Brontobyte is 1024 yottabytes, but not (yet) official terminology... Go google for further links and information... 80.4.63.73 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the human body was 70% water. If this is true how can there be more oxygen than hydrogen?
This article shows a yottabyte as a nice, even number. But for smaller measurements, it doesn't work out that way. A kilobyte is 1,024 bytes, a megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes, a gigabyte is 1,073,741,824 bytes, and following that system, a yottabyte should be 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 bytes. I don't know if that's used for such big, theoretical numbers, though, so I didn't change anything. On a side note, what's the accepted way on Wikipedia to write large numbers? Is it 1,048,576 or 1 048 576? I personally prefer the first, but I'm not going to argue with the SI standard, or whoever determines that. -- Twilight Realm 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I seriously doubt the entire state of an atom can be described in just 100 bytes. That number strikes me as beingr several orders of magnitude too low... of course with the uncertainty principle the state of an atom can never be fully described so the point is moot. Still it is an oddball arbitrary constant that makes the metaphor a little weird. Maybe it would be worthwhile to find a data structure that can be well-described. Asteron [[User_talk:Asteron|ノレツァ]] 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Any actul reason for the link to Yatta at the bottom of the page? That's just totally unrelated, right? 68.40.186.248 05:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is the bit about how many yottabytes it would take to store a human relevant whatsoever? It seems like a bit of useless trivia. Nothing wrong with trivia, but there is absolutely no logical connection whatsoever between yottabytes and human complexity. MOF 09:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In his 1995 book 'Physics of Star Trek', Prof Lawrence M Krauss looked at the difficulties involved in transporting a person in the manner suggested by Star Trek. He pointed out that the human body contained a Yottabyte of data to be transported. Writing in 1995 he also pointed out that to store this amount of data in 1995 would involve a pile of hard drives that "From Earth, you'd have to stack 100-gigabyte hard drives a third of the way to the center of the Milky Way or so to hold it all. And at current information transfer rates, it would take longer than the age of the universe to transmit that much data. " http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/star-trek-movie-science/ Star Trek is of interest to a lot of people so I suggest this connection is hardly trivia. I'd also suggest that from a real world technological view, the example above shows just how data has condensed in the last twenty years and how it is likely to continue to do so. I've seen references to 1TB memory cards so suggest the example of Giza be reduced accordingly.-- Robata ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any super computers in a world that have atleast a yottabyte? I think that that would be a good thing to add to this article if there is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncusa367 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
It will be possible after, probably 50 years, when satellites have computers strong enough to transmitt stuff from Jupiter. Albertgenii12 ( talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the statement "It has been theorized that everything in the entire universe could be stored in one yottabyte of data."
For one thing, who is it that theorizes this? The user who put this in here? A scientist? A school teacher? Also, this statement has no meaning. A Yottabyte is a unit of binary storage, not matter. Assuming that the user meant that the entire universe could be described with one yottabyte of data, that user would have to be more specific. If one wants to digitally render a 3D environment of the entire universe, it would take a lot more than 1 yottabyte... a hell of a lot more. If one wanted a 1 kb description of every single atom in the universe then again, this would take up orders of magnitude more than a yottabyte. If however someone wanted a small description of every body in the universe larger than 4 grams, then perhaps a yottabyte would be adequate. It all depends. — oo64eva (Alex) ( U | T | C) @ 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Utah Governor Herbert on June 11, 2012 told the annual meeting of the National Governors' Association that the NSA's 1,500,000 square foot data center being built outside Salt Lake City will be the first facility to house a yottabyte of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.128.78 ( talk) 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
First reference predicts 1 Zettabyte of data by 2010. The second reference claims to predict 1 Yottabyte of data by 2010. Since the second reference is incomplete, conflicts with the first and looks like an error, I removed it. — Shinhan < talk > 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing the claim. To reach a zettabyte by 2010 is feasible, a yottabyte is not, as it is way too much. Think about it, if all 1.5 billion Internet users had a 1 Terrabyte drive with all the disk space used up then that is only 1.5 zettabytes, WAY OFF the scale of a yottabyte. It may happen in 20 years however.-- 70.65.245.94 ( talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This article says "[a yottabyte] holds enough memory to record a [=one] humans entire life conversation" but the article on exabyte says that "Mark Liberman calculated the storage requirements for all human speech [i.e. "all words ever spoken by human beings"] at 42 zettabytes, if digitized as 16 kHz 16-bit audio" and that "a project at the UC Berkeley School of Information" calculated it at 5 exabytes, probably (says Liberman) "thinking of text". As the claim in this article is unsourced, I'm removing it altogether until someone finds a more credible and sourced estimate. 84.53.74.196 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that practically all of the descriptions of the separate measurement units ought to be folded under one or a few articles describing the measurement system as a whole. As in "Le Système International d'Unités"/"International System of Units", and perhaps an article on "Metric Prefixes" in addition. The separate concepts should perhaps be kept as redirections to the relevant article, or WikiMedia's search functionality should be augmented to with some sort of extra-topic tagging functionality to redirect searches for such terms into their proper location in the relevant page. Anyway, it seems to me pretty weird and unencyclopaedic to list terms such as this one as a separate article.
Secondly, even if nothing of the above sort is ever undertaken, I think it's plainly wrong to say that the binary suffixes have simply been "suggested". After all, following the links even now present in this very article, it's easy to see that IEEE -- one of the foremost standardisers in the world, in charge of standards like FireWire and Ethernet -- has formally, by ballot, accepted such suffixes as recognized nomenclature. Granted, IEEE does not have a UN mandate like ISO/IEC/ITU and the lot do. But nevertheless, it should be recognized as much in the computer science and electrical engineering field as, say ITU-T -- in actual fact the latter body's standardisation efforts tend to lead to technical practice that is theoretical, as opposed to its widely practical counterpart in IETF and IEEE practice.
Decoy ( talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is an article about a potential NSA data center with storage at the yottabyte level. Might be worth having in the article. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23231 — NMajdan• talk 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Another reference is in the 4/24/12 Network World issue article BackSpin by Mark Gibbs http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2012/042312-backspin.html Gorilla 70 ( talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the statement about the Utah Data Center should be removed or significantly toned down. The articles do not state a concrete plan for the data center to store or even process a yottabyte. Further discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Utah_Data_Center#Yottabytes.3F JedKBrown ( talk) 14:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Section should be removed entirely, as it's patently ridiculous to even entertain the notion of a single yottabyte data center, much less one that can supposedly store multiple yottabytes. Buying enough hard drives to store that much information would both: bankrupt the entire world and take up, at minimum, if you used 4 terabyte hard drives stacked end to end and not including cabling, 120 square miles of space.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) quote: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. -end quote.
quote: The magnitude of the agency's data storage reserves at Bluffdale all but defy comprehension. And it appears even that capacity will meet only part of the NSA's needs." "...As a result of this “expanding array of theater airborne and other sensor networks,” as a 2007 Department of Defense report puts it, the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes of data." denverpost.com See also at examiner.com: "NSA $2 billion Utah-based facility can process yottabytes of information" and another quote: "Oak Ridge is home to the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and it’s engaged in a new secret war. But this time, instead of a bomb of almost unimaginable power, the weapon is a computer of almost unimaginable speed." ...and many other articles that address the various impossibility arguments presented here.
"Please no more Costco-like or 1 TB thumb-drive-comparison arguments." <- It's not a comparison just for comparison's sake, dude. It's literally what it would take to build one yottabyte of storage, given today's technology. Even if we give the government a little credit and say that they're working with 40 terabyte hard drives, which is ten times the storage available to the public on one hard drive, then they would still need 25 billion hard drives to store that much information. This isn't a case of "let's entertain the notion for argument's sake." This is a case of "there is no way to set up and manage a facility of that size with today's technology. Period. No arguments." A discussion of the data center itself isn't a problem, but discussing its supposed ability to store an amount of data that isn't feasible with current technology contributes absolutely nothing to said discussion.
Also, if you want more evidence of how ridiculous such an idea is, consider power consumption. You said the facility can give enough power to juice up 40,000 homes just by itself. Well let's just try some calculations here. A 4 terabyte, 7200 RPM drive from Hitachi draws 7.3 watts while idling. Multiply this by the 250 billion hard drives you would need in order to get 1 yottabyte, and that comes out to an average power draw while idle of 1,825,000,000,000 watts. If we convert this into more familiar units, then we get 1,825,000 megawatts. Now, there are 8,765 hours in a year. If we multiply this by our power draw, we get the total power draw for the drives if we were to run them 24/7/365, as they would be run in a data center. When we do this, we get 15,996,125,000 megawatt-hours in one year. For comparison's sake, the total annual electricity draw of the entire United States is only 3.88 billion MW-hrs/year. The entire world is 19.3 billion MW-hrs/year. Now do you see how patently ridiculous this whole thing is? The energy requirements fall a little bit short of what it takes to power "40,000 homes." To power *just the hard drives,* not including any cooling equipment, lights, anything else in the facility, would require 3/4s of the annual energy output of the entire world! And then some places want to scale that up to 2+ yottabytes? Do you see the problem here?
It seems interesting to me that ALL the xxxxabyte articles were created WAY back in 2001 when a Yottabyte must have seemed infeasible; yet now in 2010 it still exists but there is nothing beyond it. By now there should be names allocated for at LEAST two more orders higher, that is, to be proportional to what we had in 2001. I'm surprised this was never deleted. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The "binary usage" column of the table gives the impression that 1 YB = 2^80 bytes. No reference is cited for this use either in the template or in the yottabyte article. Indeed the yottabyte article does not even mention this use. The template needs to be edited to avoid giving this misleading impression. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 11:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could a link to the Dutch version be added?: nl:Yottabyte
WimOckham ( talk) 14:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
What percentage of the internet is porn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.93 ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any information available on who named this unit and when? Does "yotta" come from "yotta,yotta, yotta," meaning blah,blah,blah? Or from iota? Or? 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 05:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What comes next after Yottabyte?
Are these candidates for next after Yottabyte real? Are there other names?
Xenottabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Shilentnobyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Domegemegrottebyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
Icosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes
Monoicosebyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes.
https://twitter.com/verizonnews/status/553944360308719617?lang=en (That was the highest unit of data in use in 2015. Note, however, that he refers to not only the terms you used but also the two I mentioned. All 5 terms are real, but there is no named terms for anything more than a Monoicosebyte (Such as 1000/1024 Monoicosebytes). 24.127.197.176 ( talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What about tape storage. This article mentions Terabyte drives and microSD cards. How about how many data tapes would it take to make up one Yottabyte? Sure enough this bit of trivia would be useful for this article. As the hard drive and SD card analogy made it here. 66.188.81.70 ( talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
"In 2010, it was estimated that storing a yottabyte on terabyte-size hard drives would require one million city block size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.[1] If 200 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to the public as of early 2015) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 800000 cubic meters, or the volume of 32 percent of the Great Pyramid of Giza."
Please can someone keep an eye on this section and update it as memory becomes more compressed? If they are Micros SDXC then it appears from
http://www.picstop.co.uk/memory-cards/sdxc-memory-card?page=3
that the capacity of publically available memory chips has doubled to 512GB. I presume that reduces the volume of space required to one sixth of the Great Pyramid? Robata ( talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've found another link to 512GB https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/sd-cards/extremepro-sd-uhs-i. I've taken the liberty of reducing the size reference. Robata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robata ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC) My edit appears to have been removed. I have revised the paragraph to make the reason for its inclusion clearer, which is that the move from 1YB taking up an area the size of the Great Pyramid to that of mobile structures such as the Hindenburg (or twice the Titanic's footprint, or less than the largest cruise ships ( /info/en/?search=MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas) indicate that this previously unfathomably large amount of memory can in modern times be practically stored and used. If you want to make that point clearer, fine. But I think it needs making. Robata ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the decimal and binary meanings of 'terabyte' at Talk:Terabyte#Disputed_references. The discussion has possible implications for this page. If you wish to comment, please do so on the terabyte talk page. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 10:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Delaware and Rhode Island are flat surfaces, and the Hindenburg was a three dimensional object - so not a direct comparison - and what proportion of people (particularly those living outside the US) would know the geographical areas or the volume. How many double-decker London buses' floor surfaces would the two figures equate to? 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 17:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
On most (all?) of the SI data unit pages there is a reference to a Gamerbyte in the top right "multiples of bytes" table which is listed as "100,000,000,000,000,000 yobibyte" (commas added for clarity. I am not familiar with this SI / IEC term and a quick google confirms this is not a valid unit of measurement. Should this edit be deleted?