For the record, the amount of disk storage space per unit cost has doubled 
every 14 months for the last 30 years.  It's an exponential relationship:
www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte

So data generated at a very high rate today, will be trivial to store in the 
near future.  That's not to say it is cost free, of course ... but 
exponentially approaching free. 

I worked at a Supercomputing facility for 7 years. At that time whole rooms 
were filled with state-of-the-art tape archive robots that could hold an 
unimaginable amount of data: a whole terabyte. Today, of course, that same 
volume costs under 100 USD with much faster I/O ... and I have personal copies 
of everything I generated (even digitized, uncompressed analog video).

To keep data backed up and online, of course costs something, but 
distributed/cloud computing is also changing that picture dramatically.

I am curious to know: those who have Pilatus 6M, for example. How much data do 
you generate in  a year? 

I suspect this is limited by beam intensity ... at the moment. 

Richard


On Oct 18, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Chris Morris wrote:

> Some crystals are hard to make, so storing all the data the best way to get 
> reproducibility. On the other hand, no one needs more images of lysozyme. So 
> using the same standard for every deposition doesn't sound right.
> 
> The discussion should be held on the basis of overall cost to the research 
> budget - not on the assumption that some costs can be externalised. It is too 
> easy to say "you should store the images, in case I want to reprocess them 
> sometime". IT isn't free, nor is it always cheaper than the associated 
> experimental work. The key comparison is:
> 
>   Cost of growing new crystals + cost of beam line time
> 
> With:
> 
>   Cost of storing images * probability of processing them again
> 
> At present, detectors are improving more quickly than processing software. 
> Sample preparation methods are also improving. These forces both press 
> downward the probability that a particular image will ever be reprocessed. 
> 
> regards,
> Chris

Reply via email to