3 ms·

He edited his comment. The previous version did reference the 512 GB being so big that it'd be a game changer for servers.

• jmb99 2y ago
  Yeah, 512GB was a game changer for servers... with DDR3... And that wasn’t even where it topped out, there were servers supporting 6TB of DDR3 in a single machine. DDR4 had at least 12TB in a single (quad-CPU) machine that I know of (not sure if there were any 96*256GB DDR4 configs). These days, if money’s no object, there exist boards supporting 24TB of DDR5. I think even some quad-CPU DDR2-era SKUs could do 1.5TB. 512GB is nothing. (Not directly in response to you, just adding context.)
• cellularmitosis 2y ago
  While I did make a couple of cosmetic edits within a few minutes of posting (before there were any replies), even the original was referring to the speed of the memory ("on-chip"), not its size. You misunderstood my post, and I don't appreciate the tone of your reply.
  • ffsm8 2y ago
    I didn't appreciate you removing everything I responded to either, replacing it with something making my comment look entirely out of context. While I believe you that you meant to write about the different performance profile of on chip memory, that's not what you did at the time I wrote my reply. What you actually did write was how 512 GB of RAM might revolutionize i.e. database servers. Which I addressed. And if you hadn't written that, I wouldn't have written my comment either, because I'm not a database developer that could speculate on performance side-grades of such kind (less memory, but closer to the CPU)
    • cellularmitosis 2y ago
      This is ridiculous, I changed like 3 words. While I did originally mention 512GB, the context (“on-chip”) made it clear I was referring to the speed, not the size.