3 ms·
That is really interesting, but I see this as a short term solution to a new and amazing world. What we are doing is trying to hammer something with potential t
by fungos 11y ago
That is really interesting, but I see this as a short term solution to a new and amazing world. What we are doing is trying to hammer something with potential to change most of CS to the shape of our current reality - what is understandable due to the commercial nature of these solutions.
But the CS community should think about this with a fresh point of view, maybe get back to the origins and start over with this kind of technology. Or maybe we do this already and I just do not know?
For myself, since I've got out of university, I've always thought about how things would be different if we hadn't disk+ram, but a storage that solved the two with the best of each (top speed and large and cheap capacity) - extrapolate this thing to a kind of SoC with 40+ cores and 40TB+ LD1 cache - and I tried to imagine what would be needed in terms of a new OS made from scratch for this thing.
This still keeps me thinking on new designs, new algorithms, etc. Sadly, I've never tried or even theorized anything interesting apart of entirely killing the file-system concept and having _always loaded applications_ running (equivalent to processes) or suspended (equivalent to app binary files)... :)
- derefr 11y agoEven more interesting with NUMA: imagine 10K slow/cheap cores, each with their own non-shared bit of NVMe (~10MB would do) for their heaps to live on. Perfect for running Erlang. There might not even be a point in a "classical" CPU cache hierarchy in such a system, if the NVMe is fast enough, and has its own "internal" writeback cache (e.g. some volatile battery-backed memory) protecting it, so that cycling a bit at 3GHz doesn't burn it out. At that point you may as well say you have a CPU with ten million nonvolatile registers.
- jdright 11y agoNVM as fast as registers, that is a bold ~1cycle per write/read! But would be really awesome.