Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

sandisk.com.br

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#111

Post by pbhjpbhj »

justincormack wrote: post #62
luma wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HP is already working on this with what they're calling "The Machine". They're writing a new OS around the new storage technologies with the understanding that it might not make sense to separate RAM from disk pretty soon here. They've also suggested that they'll be porting versions of Linux and Android to this platform. Of course, all of this is pretty marketing heavy and not a lot of details have been released, so…

I am not sure it is even a real project. I tried to find anyone working on it and failed. Nice story though.

>I tried to find anyone working on it and failed. //

Inventors of anything submitted in patent applications should be named on the application. That is a potential route to finding who in a corp actually invented stuff.

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#112

Post by realharo »

tokenizerrr wrote: post #90
itry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will definitely change the way we code Only on a low level, right? I have not been thinking about ram and disk in ages. I calculate with variables, I store stuff in a DB or in a file, I access the net via http. Nothing would change if ram increases I think.

Well, if you have plentiful persistent RAM an application could easily "suspend" itself (on shutdown for example), and then resume running at a later point in time. The code would not have to think about this, since the entire state is just snapshotted. It's basically what machines do now when they "hibernate", except more effecient and could even happen if the power got cut. Additionally I suppose your variables cou…

Can't wait for the persistent memory leaks!

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#113

Post by toyg »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #84
valarauca1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. Unless we start making file systems different.

Spectators may want to archive this HN thread for posterity, because I suspect nacnud will have the last laugh. (Nacnud's comment is currently sitting at about -3 points.) It's unlikely that future technological advancements will give malware authors more tools to work with? That seems unlikely, if history is any indication. Imagine when you have 1TB of non-volatile storage which operates at speeds close to those we…

I downvoted nacnud because it's such a generic statement, you could post it to almost any thread. Net neutrality? "Think of the potential for viruses to spread!" iWatch? "Think of the viruses you could have on your watch!" New JS framework? "Think of the attacks it could enable!"

Yeah, of course, everything has security implications and some technologies even more so, but unless one explains them and states how they are specific to the technology being discussed (like you did, for example) then the comment doesn't really add any value.

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#114

Post by valarauca1 »

digikata wrote: post #78
valarauca1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The benefit of using a DDR3 interface instead of SATA/SAS or PCIe is lower latency because the SSDs sit closer to the CPU. The memory interface has also been designed with parallelism in mind and can thus take greater advantage of multiple drives without sacrificing performance or latency. SanDisk claims write latency of less then five microseconds, which is lower than what even PCIe SSDs offer (e.g. Intel SSD DC P3…

But raw flash writes on the order of 1-2 milliseconds, so the 5 microseconds must be the latency to write to a ram cache inside the stick. I wonder what the latency would be for a write larger than the buffer. For that matter, how large is the buffer?

If you read the source you will see that no independent benchmarks have been done yet.

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#115

Post by pbhjpbhj »

j_s wrote: post #99
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spectators may want to archive this HN thread for posterity, because I suspect nacnud will have the last laugh. (Nacnud's comment is currently sitting at about -3 points.) It's unlikely that future technological advancements will give malware authors more tools to work with? That seems unlikely, if history is any indication. Imagine when you have 1TB of non-volatile storage which operates at speeds close to those we…

I will archive this thread to save this: > 1TB of non-volatile storage [...] Most average consumers won't use all of that

I'm with you I got my first 1TB HDD last year thinking it would last a few years. Nearly full now. Why? Because with all that space available I've changed how I use disk space - why throw stuff away. Also that I've moved to a higher grade camera and moved to consuming video stored on HDD rather than from discs.

When we're creating fully immersive 4D environments in place of holiday snaps then I imagine we're going to be using quite a lot of memory waving through our holiday review with friends.

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#117

Post by spitfire »

NamTaf wrote: post #3

I can't wait to see the programming paradigm of memory vs permanent storage begin to blur in the next 5 or so years. It's going to make some major assumptions about how you program stuff change quite significantly and it's really exciting.

IBM went all the way with this in the AS/400 back in the 80's. Single level store - RAM and disk were unified storage. with no ability for a programmer to tell the difference (RAM was purely and operations problem).

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#118

Post by avn2109 »

j_s wrote: post #99
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spectators may want to archive this HN thread for posterity, because I suspect nacnud will have the last laugh. (Nacnud's comment is currently sitting at about -3 points.) It's unlikely that future technological advancements will give malware authors more tools to work with? That seems unlikely, if history is any indication. Imagine when you have 1TB of non-volatile storage which operates at speeds close to those we…

I will archive this thread to save this: > 1TB of non-volatile storage [...] Most average consumers won't use all of that

Seriously this. Don't worry, Windows 11 will certainly require 1TB to run MaterialAeroMetro 2022.

The only thing worth debating is whether the GUI design pendulum will have swung between Flat/glossy an even or odd number of times by then :p

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#119

Post by avn2109 »

nacnud wrote: post #60
valarauca1 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they work (there is to much cash on the table for them not too), they'll completely change the way we think of volatile and non-volatile memory. Since all memory will be non-volatile. It'll be a huge paradigm shift in storage and IO speed.

.. and possibly give viruses more places to hide?

Also, it'll be a wide and fallow field for the NSA's insertion of backdoors.

Re: Bringing SSD Performance to the DIMM form factor

#120

Post by chongli »

Xylakant wrote: post #61
tormeh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit pedantic, though. The unavoidable tradeoffs are a pretty small part of the total that we're dealing with now.

L1 Cache is an order of magnitude faster than L2 cache and that's still all on the same chip. That's not "a pretty small part". Energy consumption, heat dissipation, all of this becomes a larger problem for smaller structures. It's just easier and less error prone to build larger structures, yields are higher, so costs are lower for larger structures. I'm certain the tradeoffs will change, but it's all limited by som…

These caches are currently implemented with SRAM, a technology which uses 6 transistors per bit. Find a different technology (such as memristors) and our entire set of tradeoffs are likely to change.

The laws of physics dictate what the ultimate limits of a techology are; they do not dictate which technologies you actually choose to use.

Post reply on HN