Talk:Exabyte

Untitled

Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.

Statistics

The "5 exabytes = all words ever spoken" is mentioned in the executive summary link and other places.[1][2] This may be the source. It is probably worth mentioning as an urban legend. Gimmetrow 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is "5 exabytes" the average count of all words spoken by individual human beings; or the theoretical count by all human beings combined?

What about "all the words written, typed, signed (ie sign-language) etc"? Even if the figure is "pulled out of the air" it does give an indication of the size of the number. Jackiespeel 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got a question regarding the Square Kilometre Array estimate. I looked for coroboration / more info for the CSIRO statement, and instead found that the official SKA brochure [3] shows that their expected telescope output data rate is 1 TB / minute. That's a long way off of the quote in this article. If my math is right, that's about an exabyte in 73 days, not 4 days. Sure, the source is quoted and all, but wouldn't it make more sense to stick to official figures from the project in preference to an external source? QuarkOfNature (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And is this really a "popular expression"? ekedolphin (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing source

Just wanted to leave a heads up that the following source (#11), doesn't link. I tried searching the article on businessweek.com and came up with nothing. If anyone knows of an alternative source, please provide it. Thank you.
Source in question: Bergstein, Brian (March 5, 2007). So much data, relatively little space. BusinessWeek. Retrieved on 2007-03-05. 199.89.64.176 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the bright side, because the reference gives title and author, it is relatively easy to find a copy, for instance, at MSNBC or at ABC. Gimmetrow 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The ABC link is now dead. The Businessweek article is archived at [4]. Jimw338 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just like to add my two cents regarding exabyte. In a paper published in January 2008 by the Discovery Institute, Estimating the Exaflood. It is estimated that in 2006 the total amount of digital content created worldwide was 161 exabytes. IDC predict that by 2010 988 exabytes of new digital content will be created annually. For example by mid 2007, YouTube was generating around 50 petabytes a month. A high-def YouTube would generate 1 exabyte per month. YouTube and it's competitors are only starting.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirelessab (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC) one exabyte=10^6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.0.220 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

CERN's CASTOR

The automated "summed size" indicator [5] says that CASTOR is storing 16EB, but the human-written text below says that as of 2007 there were only 7PB of data stored in CASTOR. I seriously doubt that CASTOR suddenly expanded by over 1000x in the space of a year. Also it seems that the summed size said above 30EB when User:Gimmetrow accessed the page on April 8, since that's what he wrote in the article. I think a software bug is making the summed size totally off in that display -- most likely a negative 64-bit integer being displayed as an unsigned integer (since 16EB is the address space of a 64-bit integer). I'm therefore removing the mention of CASTOR from the article. Redquark (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Navigation comment

I was noticing it is very hard to get from exabyte to zetabyte or petabyte entries. There are no links and the link to zeta- is usually not what you want. I am not sure the best way to do it but I think it would be good to have linkages between kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, ... yottabyte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.111.74 (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

non-relevant content

Much of the content of this article is really not relevant to this article, or if it is, it's equally relevant to all other articles on different units of storage. This article should be radically shortened and/or merged. --Rob (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Statistics

Am I the only one to notice that the statistics listed under "Exabyte in use" are hugely different? "As of March 2010, the global monthly Internet traffic is estimated to be 21 exabytes." --> Which is 32 exabytes a month.

monthly traffic of 21 exabytes is equal to 32 exabytes per month? I'd say that was conflicting, yeah.

is in direct conflict of:

"According to the June 2009 update of the Cisco Visual Networking Index IP traffic forecast, by 2013, annual global IP traffic will reach two-thirds of a zettabyte or 667 exabytes. Internet video will generate over 18 exabytes per month in 2013. Global mobile data traffic will grow at a CAGR of 131 percent between 2008 and 2013, reaching over two exabytes per month by 2013.[9]" --> Which is 667 exabytes per year.

"According to the Digital Britain Report[10] 494 Exabytes of data was transferred across the globe on 15 June 2009." --> Which is 500 exabytes per year.

Why does it seem like these are all different and the last one is so vastly off from the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.138.116 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The first two refer to different years (2009/2010 and 2013). The third one must be a mistake, maybe they meant "494 petabytes per day", which is a lot closer to 21 exabytes per month.

Anyway, I propose that we delete all Internet traffic predictions except for the first one – after all, this article is about exabyte, not about IP traffic predictions. – Adrian (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

---

What I want to know, on this same front, is where the stats for total stored data per year came from. Pretty sure it would have increased significantly more than a mere 80x or so in the 31 years between 1986 and 2007... on top of which the figures seem extremely optimistic for 1986 (unless we count audio CDs amongst the total and assume a much greater market penetration than seems to be the actual case at the time) given that, even if everyone was to have a computer at the time, 535mb would imply a setup with both as large a hard drive as might have been available at the time (maybe 120mb) plus several hundred floppy discs (about 350 high density 5.25" or nearly 600 double density 3.5"), representing probably $2000 of investment if not more for every single person.

In contrast the 2007 one is remarkably conservative, given that it implies about 40gb per person (or in fact, a 40gb hard drive after formatting, or a single pack of single-layer DVDRs... maybe even 9 of them if you overburned very slightly) - or in other words equal to what was installed in the affordable ultraportable/touchscreen laptop I bought in 2006 (which also came along with an external DVDRW and a free 10-pack of discs...) and could have been had more cheaply either in a desktop PC, or separately in order to swap in and out as a very simple backup solution. In truth, I had personally sailed right past the 40gb point probably before the turn of the millennium, earlier if CDs and CDRs were included, and easily far past 400Gb, maybe even 4Tb before 2007 thanks to the coming of DVDs and then DVDRs, as well as broadband internet. Alright, that's an affluent western view, but every appearance of a new upper limit or compressed form of the tech makes the previous generation less desirable and much cheaper even though it's still serviceable (especially in terms of flash storage like memory cards and USB sticks), so just on the basis of what us spoiled lot might have averaged against those who have little or no digital storage, 40gb/head seems far too low.

And of course, you can basically walk into a high street electronics shop and pick up a 4Tb external drive for about $100... really, the suggestion is that the last 10 years have seen a far greater effective increase in shared storage capacity instead of keeping roughly to moore's law? Huh... 146.199.60.55 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

misleading table entry

The "binary usage" column of the table gives the impression that 1 EB = 2^60 bytes. No reference is cited for this use either in the template or in the exabyte article. Indeed the exabyte article does not even mention this use. The template needs to be edited to avoid giving this misleading impression. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This reference says "exabyte EB s⁶⁰ bytes. This reference lists yottabyte, exabyte, zettabyte, gigabyte etc all with power of two values. I must remind you that you have been told not to push your PoV about binary prefixes on Wikipedia. Glider87 (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification?

Most people still refer to Exabyte using the binary usage, specially when it's about storage (and not data rate). The changes made by the the IEC, as discussed here, were not adopted. The "google" converter for instance would return: 1 exabyte = 1.1529215 × 10¹⁸ bytes to the request 1 exabyte to byte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.212.216 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

unclear content

"494 exabytes of data was transferred across the globe on June 15, 2009" This makes it sounds like 494 exabytes was transferred on that day. Does it mean across all of networking history up until that day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.17.214 (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that it otherwise means about 67gb (tb??) per person on that one day, which you'd have to work hard to transmit over consumer-grade links, I figure you're right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.60.55 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So, you're saying that internet traffic is going to drop by 90% in one year?

"In 2016 global IP traffic will reach ... 110.3 exabytes per month. By 2017 global mobile data traffic will reach 11.2 exabytes per month ..." Thats a big drop, considering that in your last sentence, you said it increased, and in your next sentence, you said it increased. Ze number, I think ze be a typo. moeburn (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Decimal vs binary meanings of 'terabyte'

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Exabyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071126041511/http://www.pcworld.com:80/article/id,139885-pg,1/article.html to http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139885-pg,1/article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)