5 ms·
With 32TB of ram it looks appealing to not even bother with a RDBMS and just use a full text database and keep everything in memory lol.
by endisneigh 3y ago
With 32TB of ram it looks appealing to not even bother with a RDBMS and just use a full text database and keep everything in memory lol.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIt's not Big Data until it's over 32TB now! (or 64TB if your a Power10 user)
- at_a_remove 3y agoYou laugh but I have done some crazy speedups via ramdisk techniques.
- doublerabbit 3y agoEarly Minecraft for one.
- tomsmeding 3y agoIf your data is mutable, as in most situations where one uses a database, you still have to hit the disk for writes and wait for a disk sync before continuing after the writes. Reads are indeed fast, but a proper RDBMS will instantly use all of that memory capacity for caching anyway, meaning that you get the same read speeds even with the RDBMS. No need to change your code.
- endisneigh 3y agoThere are certain algorithms that are more used on in memory data structures that could be leveraged and never touch disk, not just simply boosting a relational database. That being said my post was somewhat in jest
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoIf all that 15 PCIe x16 could be used for CXL at PCIe 5.0 speeds, that'd be just shy of 1TBps of attached memory, and one could hypothetically scale out to whatever size one wanted too. Samsung dropped a 256GB CXL memory drive quite recently. These numbers should keep climbing and climbing. Very early days still yes. Sure does seem like in-memory will be enough for most users soon. And CXL 3.0 introduces switching. So multiple servers can connect to the same memory device. Tons of interesting options to revise how things work as that starts to happen. The conventional ideas of networking are kind of silly when you can just have some other computer access the same memory.
- fulafel 3y agoRAM size > data size has been the case for most DBs for a while, software has been slow in adapting to it.