Until thumb drives became large enough to fit most datasets it stopped becoming Big Data. Just normal data.

jmalicki 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To some degree IMO big data is still a mindset when it might take a day to process your data in a normal SQL query. Some tech doesn't scale to the data size for all use cases, and you need different solutions.

▲

ffsm8 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We have thumb drives that can store petabytes of data?

Or did you mean the "big data" crowd which thought 500GB was noteworthy? I don't think anyone took those serious, neither in 2010s nor now. That was always "small" data

▲

0x457 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

My rule of thumb was "can it fit in RAM on a server?" If it can, then it's not big data.

500GB is in the "fits" category.

▲

butlike 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We have thumb drives that can store petabytes of data

We do?

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It was a question that you've edited out the punctuation. You're asking the exact same thing as the person you've replied

▲

ffsm8 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please provide a link.

	▲	BizarroLand 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You would need 4 and change of these 245tb Kioxias to hold 1 petabyte, and an entire server grade computer to run them. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ssds/kioxia-unvei... Or 250 of these ~$400 4tb flash drives and an insane number of dongles to connect them all: https://www.slashgear.com/1847725/largest-usb-thumb-drive-hi...

▲

varispeed 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most companies using term "big data" had datasets in TB region. One company I had a gig at had full Hadoop cluster setup and their whole dataset was 40GB. Their marketing had all the big data adjacent keywords over the brochures for clients.