• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News 128TB SSDs

KamenRiderBlade said:
f0E3S9G.png
Click to expand...
I found a further extension.

One fetabyte (10⁸¹) exceeds the Eddington number, the estimated number of protons in the observable universe (10⁸⁰).
  • 10⁰ - Byte (eight bits)
  • 10³ - Kilobyte (one thousand bytes)
  • 10⁶ - Megabyte (one million bytes)
  • 10⁹ - Gigabyte (one billion bytes)
  • 10¹² - Terabyte (one trillion bytes)
  • 10¹⁵ - Petabyte (one quadrillion bytes)
  • 10¹⁸ - Exabyte (one quintillion bytes)
  • 10²¹ - Zettabyte (one sextillion bytes)
  • 10²⁴ - Yottabyte (one septillion bytes)
  • 10²⁷ - Ronnabyte (one octillion bytes)
  • 10³⁰ - Quettabyte (one nonillion bytes)
  • 10³³ - Vundabyte (one decillion bytes)
  • 10³⁶ - Udabyte (one undecillion bytes)
  • 10³⁹ - Tredabyte (one duodecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴² - Sortabyte (one tredecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴⁵ - Rintabyte (one quattuordecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴⁸ - Quexabyte (one quindecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵¹ - Peptabyte (one sexdecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵⁴ - Ochabyte (one septendecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵⁷ - Nenabyte (one octodecillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁰ - Mingabyte (one novemdecillion bytes)
  • 10⁶³ - Lumabyte (one vigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁶ - Kamabyte (one unvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁹ - Jameabyte (one duovigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷² - Ianabyte (one trevigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷⁵ - Hevabyte (one quattuorvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷⁸ - Gexabyte (one quinvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸¹ - Fetabyte (one sesvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸⁴ - Eottabyte (one septenvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸⁷ - Devabyte (one octovigintillion bytes)
 
Last edited:
Cryogenator said:
I found a further extension.

One fetabyte (10⁸¹) exceeds the Eddington number, the estimated number of protons in the observable universe (10⁸⁰).
  • 10¹ - Byte (eight bits)
  • 10³ - Kilobyte (one thousand bytes)
  • 10⁶ - Megabyte (one million bytes)
  • 10⁹ - Gigabyte (one billion bytes)
  • 10¹² - Terabyte (one trillion bytes)
  • 10¹⁵ - Petabyte (one quadrillion bytes)
  • 10¹⁸ - Exabyte (one quintillion bytes)
  • 10²¹ - Zettabyte (one sextillion bytes)
  • 10²⁴ - Yottabyte (one septillion bytes)
  • 10²⁷ - Ronnabyte (one octillion bytes)
  • 10³⁰ - Quettabyte (one nonillion bytes)
  • 10³³ - Vundabyte (one decillion bytes)
  • 10³⁶ - Udabyte (one undecillion bytes)
  • 10³⁹ - Tredabyte (one duodecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴² - Sortabyte (one tredecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴⁵ - Rintabyte (one quattuordecillion bytes)
  • 10⁴⁸ - Quexabyte (one quindecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵¹ - Peptabyte (one sexdecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵⁴ - Ochabyte (one septendecillion bytes)
  • 10⁵⁷ - Nenabyte (one octodecillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁰ - Mingabyte (one novemdecillion bytes)
  • 10⁶³ - Lumabyte (one vigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁶ - Kamabyte (one unvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁶⁹ - Jameabyte (one duovigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷² - Ianabyte (one trevigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷⁵ - Hevabyte (one quattuorvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁷⁸ - Gexabyte (one quinvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸¹ - Fetabyte (one sesvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸⁴ - Eottabyte (one septenvigintillion bytes)
  • 10⁸⁷ - Devabyte (one octovigintillion bytes)
Click to expand...
Nice!

Asbo Zaprudder said:
Fetabyte sounds a bit cheesy.
Click to expand...


OeiEruJ.png

I did a little bit of research on newer #'s & updated it =D
 
Last edited:
Asbo Zaprudder said:
I see Xena clocks in at 10^105. Whilst fun, in reality, these prefixes are ridiculously useless.
Click to expand...
=(
You don't think we'll ever need a name for > 10^30 power?

It did take the SI organization 31 years to give us the most recent 2x Prefixes.

ronna/ronto & quetta/quecto was only authorized by SI in 2022.

Before that, the last major Prefixes was in 1991.
That was for Yotta/Yocto & Zetta/Zepto.

In 1975, we got Metric Prefixes for Exe/Peta
In 1964, we got Metric Prefixes for Femto/Atto
In 1960, we got Metric Prefixes for Tera/Giga & Nano/Pico
1960 was when the SI system that we all used got published.
Units before 1960 already existed in our scientific lexicon.

Remember, in our Star Trek like future, especially all the way up to the 24th/25th century, alot of time has past.

Wouldn't they want more Prefixes by then?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say never, but as I mentioned, 10^30 is as many atoms as there are in about 1,600 kilogram-moles of a substance. I'd be quite happy to have names invented when required to denote storage capability - computer clock speed seems to have asymptotically maxed out due to physical limitations. Otherwise, powers of 10 are more memorable.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
I wouldn't say never, but as I mentioned, 10^30 is as many atoms as there are in about 1,600 kilogram-moles of a substance. I'd be quite happy to have names invented when required to denote storage capability - computer clock speed seems to have asymptotically maxed out due to physical limitations. Otherwise, powers of 10 are more memorable.
Click to expand...
It's a bit more complicated than just raising the Clock Frequency.

You have to remember that increasing the clock cycles only decreases time in a ever smaller increment.
Ergo: (1-second / ###-<Prefix>Hz) will give you a ever decreasing rate of return in terms of time improvements.

Here's a simple example to prove my point, RAM timings:
pPqArkY.png
The faster you go on the Clock Cycles or # of Transfers in MT/sec, you get a ever smaller improvement in how long each clock cycle takes.

Certain operations will always take X # of Clock cycles or be waiting on certain other aspects of the CPU/GPU/Storage/etc to complete.

So for many cycles, your CPU/GPU/APU/etc will be waiting for stuff to process or not get anything done.

While the faster you go, the more heat you generate.

So raising frequency helps to a point, but it comes with a HUGE drawback in terms of heat.

Ergo the current CPU/GPU paradigm of going wider, with more cache, and more ASICs for specialty functions to get things more done efficiently in modern computing.

Use the CPU/GPU for their intended functions.
 
My point was actually about whether new unit prefixes will required in areas other than storage, but never mind. If people want to invent new prefixes, fair enough. It's basically an academic exercise. Nobody will bother becoming familiar with them until they are required.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
My point was actually about whether new unit prefixes will required in areas other than storage, but never mind. If people want to invent new prefixes, fair enough. It's basically an academic exercise. Nobody will bother becoming familiar with them until they are required.
Click to expand...
But how many people use more than a handful of Prefixes that are common, the rest are rare to use and usually require people to look them up anyways.
 
KamenRiderBlade said:
But how many people use more than a handful of Prefixes that are common, the rest are rare to use and usually require people to look them up anyways.
Click to expand...
They're not intuitively understandable numbers. I guess some people just want to label quantities - either for marketing purposes or because of OCD.

Calculating the Bekenstein bound for the observable universe with radius 4.4x10^26 m, the dimensionality of the Hilbert space that describes it is approximately 10^124, which determines the maximal amount of information that is needed to represent it at the quantum level. That's the ultimate storage capacity of our reality.

Several methods have been proposed for producing computing devices or data storage devices that approach physical and practical limits:
  • A cold degenerate star could conceivably be used as a giant data storage device, by carefully perturbing it to various excited states, in the same manner as an atom or quantum well used for these purposes. Such a star would have to be artificially constructed, as no natural degenerate stars will cool to this temperature for an extremely long time. It is also possible that nucleons on the surface of neutron stars could form complex "molecules", which some have suggested might be used for computing purposes, creating a type of computronium based on femtotechnology, which would be faster and denser than computronium based on nanotechnology.
  • It may be possible to use a black hole as a data storage or computing device, if a practical mechanism for extraction of contained information can be found. Such extraction may in principle be possible (Stephen Hawking's proposed resolution to the black hole information paradox). This would achieve storage density exactly equal to the Bekenstein bound. Seth Lloyd calculated the computational abilities of an "ultimate laptop" formed by compressing a kilogram of matter into a black hole of radius 1.485 × 10^−27 meters, concluding that it would only last about 10^−19 seconds before evaporating due to Hawking radiation, but that during this brief time it could compute at a rate of about 5 × 10^50 operations per second, ultimately performing about 10^32 operations on 10^16 bits (~1 PB). Lloyd notes that "Interestingly, although this hypothetical computation is performed at ultra-high densities and speeds, the total number of bits available to be processed is not far from the number available to current computers operating in more familiar surroundings."
  • In The Singularity Is Near, Ray Kurzweil cites the calculations of Seth Lloyd that a universal-scale computer is capable of 10^90 operations per second. The mass of the universe can be estimated at 3 × 10^52 kilograms. If all matter in the universe was turned into a black hole, it would have a lifetime of 2.8 × 10^139 seconds before evaporating due to Hawking radiation. During that lifetime such a universal-scale black hole computer would perform 2.8 × 10^229 operations.
Click to expand...

Limits of computation - Wikipedia
 
The moment the list of prefixes becomes too long to easily remember, it has probably lost its practicality. If most people have to look up what a 'Jameabyte ' is every time, because they keep forgetting the exact exponent, it's probably more convenient to say 10^69 bytes instead. Those prefixes are only there to facilitate communication, after all. (And that's not even considering whether 10^69 units of something occurs often enough in applications to need a prefix in the first place)
 
Last edited:
One Jameabyte is 8 x 10^69 bits (ignoring any parity bits). There are roughly 1.2 x 10^68 atoms in all the stars of our Galaxy. It'll be a while before that prefix becomes useful.

Also, the J short form clashes with that for joule, so it wouldn't be acceptable for use with SI units. For example, the units of Planck's constant h are Js (joule seconds).
 
Last edited:
Asbo Zaprudder said:
One Jameabyte is 8 x 10^69 bits (ignoring any parity bits). There are roughly 1.2 x 10^68 atoms in all the stars of our Galaxy. It'll be a while before that prefix becomes useful.

Also, the J short form clashes with that for joule, so it wouldn't be acceptable for use with SI units. For example, the units of Planck's constant h are Js (joule seconds).
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll work on making sure they don't conflict with existing SI units.
 
KamenRiderBlade said:
Ok, I'll work on making sure they don't conflict with existing SI units.
Click to expand...
A few other ambiguities stand out (not an exhaustive list):

C = cica versus C = coulomb (charge)
F = feta versus F = farad (capacitance)
H = hiva versus H = henry (inductance)
VA = vapta versus VA = volt-ampere (AC circuit apparent power*)

* Apparent power is the magnitude of the vector sum of the real power vector and the reactive power vector.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top