1.5 Billion Terabytes

Norkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,675
Name
Jak
Edit My Images
No
I was watching the F1 testing session at the weekend.
David Croft said that over the course of the 3 days teams will collect 1.5 billion terabytes of data.
That’s per team.

Surely that can’t be correct can it?
 
I was watching the F1 testing session at the weekend.
David Croft said that over the course of the 3 days teams will collect 1.5 billion terabytes of data.
That’s per team.

Surely that can’t be correct can it?

I don't know but that does should like a rather over the top exaggeration to me.
That's just a stupid amount of data. What could they possibly collect that would take that amount of storage and where exactly are they storing it?

Google doesn't publish it storage capacity but from what I have found online it was estimated that google holds somewhere around 10-15 exabytes of data (that was six years ago). An Exabyte is 1 million terabytes.
 
Last edited:
I'd hazard a guess that they might gather a humungous amount of data - raw data - to be processed by AI software which needs a lot of data to scan for patterns of behaviour. However that number does sound wrong and probably just an un-knowing exaggeration.
 
I can see that they might collect that much data - if they save every sensor's output every ms! In a sport where every ms counts, it might help.
 
I get the feeling that Crofty got that a little bit wrong.
 
Well they are simply not storing that amount of data.

Using the largest HDD it would need well over 40 million units per team, the largest SSD I could find is 100TB at around $40,000
Now I know F1 spend a lot but they are not spending $600 million on storage.
 
That sort of data processing would more likely be done using distributed processing, ie multiple computers processing different subsets of data, I'd think. But even if not, $40k is not a lot for one storage array, given the application. I'd expect them to be running a multiple of that and storing a lot offline too. The compute power is where the money would need to be spent, along with the software engineering to design the AI code. .You'd probably be looking at several TeraFlops (I'm not sure what the next level above that is) of compute power being rented (not purchased) to get some sort of meaningful information from the data.
 
It is probably no coincidence that Lewis Hamilton has the AWS logo on his overalls...
 
I was watching the F1 testing session at the weekend.
David Croft said that over the course of the 3 days teams will collect 1.5 billion terabytes of data.
That’s per team.

Surely that can’t be correct can it?
1.5 billion terabytes per team… If true, I think it is massive overkill for what they might need to gather in order to understand the car’s performance. That’s an awful lot of data. Would need huge processing power and lots of energy to work through it
 
Well they are simply not storing that amount of data.

Using the largest HDD it would need well over 40 million units per team, the largest SSD I could find is 100TB at around $40,000
Now I know F1 spend a lot but they are not spending $600 million on storage.
They're not storing it all, it's real time data that's processed in the cloud using AWS infrastructure.
If you think about how many sensors they have on each car which is constantly feeding data live to the cloud, but they won't 'save' the data, a lot of it will be discarded.
 
I certainly no expert, how do you get 15 billion TB in to the cloud.
 
I certainly no expert, how do you get 15 billion TB in to the cloud.
It doesn’t all go at the same time
Although I’m sure he has his numbers wrong. I don’t think it’s 15 billion terabytes, but apparently the cars can give millions of data points every second they’ll be using the very best in cloud tech
 
They're not storing it all, it's real time data that's processed in the cloud using AWS infrastructure.
If you think about how many sensors they have on each car which is constantly feeding data live to the cloud, but they won't 'save' the data, a lot of it will be discarded.
Why would you not save it? Storage is cheap and somebody may want it later. Better just to stick it in glacier. All it costs is money.

Source: am data engineer. We save a lot of stuff.
 
Why would you not save it? Storage is cheap and somebody may want it later. Better just to stick it in glacier. All it costs is money.

Source: am data engineer. We save a lot of stuff.
I was the coding team leader on a UK government project in the early 1980s.

At one meeting, I was cornered by the project manager, who demanded that I set the limit for the system data store. Being wildly optimistic, I said "Two Gigabytes". He glanced at a sheet of paper he was holding, shook his head and said "we can't afford that. You can have one and I'll have a fight for that!" :wideyed:
 
Assuming the data is from the car, I'm wondering how long it would take to actually transfer that amount of data,? and I cant see the car storing that much, so it would either be when the car is parked (which means the car needs to store it) or radio transfer... 'm no expert, but I have my doubts.
 
I was the coding team leader on a UK government project in the early 1980s.

At one meeting, I was cornered by the project manager, who demanded that I set the limit for the system data store. Being wildly optimistic, I said "Two Gigabytes". He glanced at a sheet of paper he was holding, shook his head and said "we can't afford that. You can have one and I'll have a fight for that!" :wideyed:
Times have, very much, changed.

About 5 years ago we needed some extra storage for temp space on an on prem SQL server. The quote was somewhere around 30k for replicated SSDs plus a 3 month lead time as we got engineers on site and planned outages on main and BC servers. Plus CTO time to approve the capex.

Couple of months ago we had a similar issue on a server - this time an Azure VM. I was on a live call discussing with DevOps "oh yeah, that looks important.......done. May take an hour or so to see all the benefits".

BTW this is a couple of years out of date. It will have gone up a lot - but I don't believe 1.5 B Tb either

 
Why would you not save it? Storage is cheap and somebody may want it later. Better just to stick it in glacier. All it costs is money.

Source: am data engineer. We save a lot of stuff.
I was giving a best guess to what they do, unless you work with the team I guess we don't know for sure :)

Source: 30 years in IT from certified SQL DBA, MCSE (blast from the past) and up the corporate ladder to IT Senior Management (means nothing I know but we're still guessing) :ROFLMAO:
 
I was giving a best guess to what they do, unless you work with the team I guess we don't know for sure :)

Source: 30 years in IT from certified SQL DBA, MCSE (blast from the past) and up the corporate ladder to IT Senior Management (means nothing I know but we're still guessing) :ROFLMAO:

I was assuming they knew what they were doing. If you work in Senior Management I can understand why you'd assume the opposite :D

Statista say the world is currently producing about half a zettabytes a day (https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/). That's not wildly out of line with some figures Microsoft presented at a conference I was at yesterday (it's always hard when the numbers get big because they could be grossing up or scaling down depending on what point they want to prove)

I.e. he's saying each team generates 150% of all the data in the world for a sustained period of 2 days. That seems unlikely.
 
Back
Top