4 ms·

A really interesting point at about 37 minutes in, where they say that drives could end up executing code just like graphics cards do now. That could really sp

by rythie 17y ago

A really interesting point at about 37 minutes in, where they say that drives could end up executing code just like graphics cards do now. That could really speed things up. You wouldn't have all the latency of doing multiple reads on the device to find a file. Normally the CPU would have interrupt raised for each return of the read but with this it could just request a file and get the return in one go.

helwr 17y ago
i was just reading about Active Disks yesterday: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.4090&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.... http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/Active/index.shtml http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/Active/index.shtml
- rythie 17y ago
  They're both pretty old I think, around 2001? Neither seem particularly relevant to today's SSDs.
hga 17y ago
Indeed; we're told they're flaky in part because the have as much firmware as a modern OS has kernel code, there's no reason why they can't eventually allow for this sort of thing. Even given how social and political doing that right would be, this could happen before the day SSDs displace magnetic media (a day we can not as yet really foresee).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
anamax 17y ago
> A really interesting point at about 37 minutes in, where they say that drives could end up executing code And the wheel of reincarnation starts to turn again. Some/most IBM "channel controllers" (read disk controllers) were fairly programmable. At some points in time and with some configurations, it was faster to run things on them than in the mainframe. In other cases, it was faster to run "everything" on the mainframe. Some folks made a fairly good living moving parts of applications to and from channel controllers.
gdickie 17y ago
The Netezza database appliance essentially works like this -- each disk is paired with an FPGA and a CPU core. The disk-local CPU takes care of caching directory information for the disk, decides what order to process disk pages in, and manages a disk cache with full awareness of the application. After a disk read the FPGA cuts away unwanted data before the CPU has to look at it. This has been shipping for several years. To the extent that your problem is embarrassingly parallel and can be executed near the disk, you speed up linearly with the number of disks. (I am currently employed by Netezza)

by rythie 17y ago

helwr 17y ago

i was just reading about Active Disks yesterday: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.4090&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.... http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/Active/index.shtml http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/Active/index.shtml

rythie 17y ago
They're both pretty old I think, around 2001? Neither seem particularly relevant to today's SSDs.

hga 17y ago

Indeed; we're told they're flaky in part because the have as much firmware as a modern OS has kernel code, there's no reason why they can't eventually allow for this sort of thing. Even given how social and political doing that right would be, this could happen before the day SSDs displace magnetic media (a day we can not as yet really foresee).

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

anamax 17y ago

> A really interesting point at about 37 minutes in, where they say that drives could end up executing code And the wheel of reincarnation starts to turn again. Some/most IBM "channel controllers" (read disk controllers) were fairly programmable. At some points in time and with some configurations, it was faster to run things on them than in the mainframe. In other cases, it was faster to run "everything" on the mainframe. Some folks made a fairly good living moving parts of applications to and from channel controllers.

gdickie 17y ago

The Netezza database appliance essentially works like this -- each disk is paired with an FPGA and a CPU core. The disk-local CPU takes care of caching directory information for the disk, decides what order to process disk pages in, and manages a disk cache with full awareness of the application. After a disk read the FPGA cuts away unwanted data before the CPU has to look at it. This has been shipping for several years. To the extent that your problem is embarrassingly parallel and can be executed near the disk, you speed up linearly with the number of disks. (I am currently employed by Netezza)