[cryptome] Re: shock absorber
- From: "taxakis" <taxakis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:39:43 +0200
OK let's stay with 10^3 then. That will certainly hold 125 billion/mo
records, rolling for 30 days. But, I would like to see an angle on what's
actually ended up there from the various exchanges. A single ppt slide and
some guesstimates by a reporter is a tad weak, don't you think? Now there's
also bubbling up the discussion it were mainly metadata and no content.
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 04:04:22PM +0200, taxakis wrote:
> > Even 125 billion/month is misleading.
> > Wonder if there's someone on the list who can set this
out/extrapolate
> > to the magnitude of data transported.
> > Supposedly NSA Nevada could hold 5 Zettabytes.
>
> They don't have nearly enough power for that, unless the spindles are
> only spun up on demand (feasible by structuring records over time). A
> rack is about a PByte, so 10^3 racks an Exabyte. I doubt they have
more
> than 10^4. Assuming 10 kW/rack, and 10^4 racks, that's 100 MW -- the
> whole Utah facility has only 65 MW. 10^3 racks at 10 MW total appears
> more realistic.
>
> Very large scale HDD purchases should also be traceable by going to
> manufacturers.
>
> >
{http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04/12/nsa-data-center-front-and-cent
> > er-in- debate-over-liberty-security-and-privacy/}
Other related posts:
