3 ms·
Imo, what kills Optane, is that it has limited write cycles, like an SSD, and because of that you can't treat it like RAM.
by torginus 5y ago
Imo, what kills Optane, is that it has limited write cycles, like an SSD, and because of that you can't treat it like RAM.
- jw14 5y agoIf I'm reading this right, I think UltraRAM doesn't solve this problem. From the article: > its fast switching speed and program-erase cycling endurance is "one hundred to one thousand times better than flash." I know flash can get some impressive endurance now, but if you start treating it like RAM, is 1000x that endurance even enough?
- chmod775 5y ago> I know flash can get some impressive endurance now, but if you start treating it like RAM, is 1000x that endurance even enough? Anything with limited endurance will need some kind of controller in front of it that makes sure that it wears out evenly. You'll end up with "copy-on-write" RAM that will be inherently slow/space inefficient, either due to block size being way too large for typical RAM access pattern or the data structure managing it becoming too large. And of course you incur extra latency from having to do look-ups in the first place.
- arghnoname 5y agoThis is a problem. When I worked on it I didn’t treat it as RAM, but as something RAM would spill to. Essentially treating it as where memory mapped files are stored and then being clever about how those files are read/written. This reduces writes to once per modified byte address within a transaction (e.g., between msyncs).