Consumer DVDs point the way toward an IT storage future. (First in/First out).

Mark: Hal, what's happening with jukebox automation in the DVD world?

Hal: I haven't heard anything earth-shattering. The technology has been well-understood for years: It's the same transport mechanism CD jukeboxes have used all along; only the drives are different. And nobody's doing double-sided recording, yet. So, I don't see any technical improvements on the horizon until that happens.

Mark: How about applications? Will DVD jukeboxes give IT users something that tape or RAID can't?

Hal: Sure! You can take the disks out and "play" them on an ordinary DVD player or DVD-ROM reader--that is, if they're write-once DVD-R disks. We still have three mutually incompatible rewritable formats.

Mark: Do you think DVD has a future in the IT space? It has a growing presence in the consumer market.

Hal: It's got such a presence among consumers that some established companies are changing their business model around it. And I think that it foreshadows a movement in IT. For instance, Blockbuster Video has been adding DVD versions of its VHS tapes for years; so now, its inventories are more than half DVD--

Mark: That's not news.

Hal: Sure. But just as they're converting to DVD, along comes a company called NetFlix. Heard of them? Here's its business model: For a flat 20 bucks a month, you can borrow as many DVDs as you like, three at a time. You give them a wish list over the Internet, and as soon as you return one, they send you the next one on your list. It's all done by mail, in postpaid envelopes--bare disks in paper sheaths. Blockbuster sees the handwriting on the wall: If you can order online and get free delivery and returns, why would you visit a brick-and-mortar shop? So Blockbuster is now offering an all-you-can-eat option, too.

Mark: What, exactly, is the lesson there for the IT space?

Hal: It's the ease-of-use versus ownership tradeoff. If all you need is a glimpse, you don't have to keep the whole database. Have you heard about WAM!NET? That exclamation point inside the name is the only stupid thing about the company.

Mark: What's their real point?

Hal: WAM!NET operates RAIDs in two geographically separate archival storage facilities, for photos and graphic images, and bills customers for the size and number of "libraries" maintained on their behalf. When an editor needs to run a photo in his magazine, he can spec it by its WAM!NET filename, and WAM!NET will send it to the printer in a hurry and in whatever format the pre-press configuration requires.

Mark: Okay, it's a store-and-forward service. But does any real-world editor actually use it?

Hal: The editors at Time magazine do, because they work in New York, but their printing plant's in Chicago. WAM!NET also hosts the entire Corbis royalty-free photo library. And Corbis is owned by Bill Gates, who's not the sort of guy who'd let just anybody handle his data.

Mark: Hal, what happened? You've always been a vocal advocate for local control over local data.

Hal: I haven't exactly seen the light. But I do feel you should keep hold of what you need for your local work, and you should consider storing, outside, a lot of what needs to be shared. Also, capacity isn't limited. With DVDs, the per-gigabyte cost starts to challenge tape.

Mark: What I meant was that the storage-outsourcing model has always run up against the "trust" issue: Am I willing to trust my data to somebody else?

Hal: You have to trust somebody: your own storage manager, if no one else.

Mark: I'll buy the exceptional convenience of the store-and-forward model, especially for a large picture archive. But it seems to me there's a difference between images--no matter how valuable--and that single, 100MB file that's mission-critical to some company.

Hal: Let's ask our readers: Do you have some data that you will never, ever trust to anybody? If so, email me at [e-mail]

Mark: And If you think that outsourcing has advantages that outweigh the risks, then email me at [e-mail]