Talk:Exabyte

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The ABC link is now dead. The Businessweek article is archived at . Jimw338 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing source

message: The automated "summed size" indicator  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)
thread_title: CERN's CASTOR

message: 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)
thread_title: Navigation comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  non-relevant content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  misleading table entry 

message: 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)
thread_title: Further clarification?

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  unclear content 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decimal vs binary meanings of 'terabyte' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Exabyte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified