Re: size musings

[Tom Droege <tdroege@veriomail.com>]

Rob,

Yep, you are within a factor of 5 one way or the other.  The last year that 
I kept data I had 85 nights when I observed.  I think Arne claims more like 
250.  Note that I think we can take useful data for relative photometry 
when many other programs would be shut down.  It is just the nature of the 
experiment.

2000 stars per image is low for most exposure times.

100 picture sets is about right - but we could do 200-300 for a fast bright 
star scan.

That is the fun of this project.  Lots of data.  The challenge is to make 
it good data.  Then it will be very useful.

Disk space seems to be selling for around $5 per Gigabyte these days, so 
storage space is just not a problem for the processed data.

Tom Droege

At 02:47 PM 2/16/01 -0700, you wrote:

>Pardon, but I was explaining the size problem to a co-worker, and starting
>musing about possibilities of the entire system...  These numbers might be
>on the low side - any comments?
>
>2000 stars per image
>
>2 images per picture set
>100 picture sets per night
>100 nights per year
>
>20,000 images to be analyzed a year
>8Mb per image
>160 Gigabytes of data per site to be analyzed per year
>
>40,000,000 stars per site per year, and if we keep every observation in a
>database:
>26 bytes per star (observation list only)
>1 Gigabyte per site per year of star data.
>
>12 sites...
>
>
>Robert Creager
>Senior Software Engineer
>Client Server Library
>303.673.2365 V
>303.661.5379 F
>888.912.4458 P
>StorageTek
>INFORMATION made POWERFUL
>