3 ms·
Why would it be any different than now? What fundamentally changes if RAM itself became persistent vs. being persistable to other hardware, except you'd save th
by pishpash 5y ago
Why would it be any different than now? What fundamentally changes if RAM itself became persistent vs. being persistable to other hardware, except you'd save the one-time data loading cost? Case in point, RTX 3090 GPU's have 24GB of RAM on board, and they're left always on.
- abraxas 5y agoIf RAM and storage become one and the same the way you store your data in memory is how you store your data permanently. The state of your application becomes your data storage. Or at least in theory it could.
- pishpash 5y agoYeah but the point is you can do that today. The OS does it with hibernation.
- inetknght 5y ago> The state of your application becomes your data storage. That's honestly a worst-case scenario. Imagine an application that is permanently in RAM -- and no matter how often you kill it, it will never "reload" from a clean state.
- usrusr 5y agoI agree that nothing would change. Even the "flushed to journal" approach of databases and filesystems would remain, because that doesn't just happen because of the looming danger of power loss, it also happens because software malfunctions exist and you want to separate work in progress from the done and approved. And if it's not cheaper as RAM it's not interesting anyways. Chances are if you could afford 1:1 paging plenty of applications would happily do and not mind the separation between a fast copy and a persistent copy at all.