11 ms·

So what's wrong with 1975 programming? (2008)

• _delirium 14y ago
  Earlier discussion, fwiw (though it was 2 1/2 years ago): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554656 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1554656 Among other things, contains an interesting alternate perspective from a former Squid developer, about some of Squid's design decisions, some of which were driven by a goal of being maximally cross-platform and compatible with all possible clients/servers. Others were driven by the fact that Unix VM systems were actually not very good much more recently than 1975, like in the 1990s.
• mcfunley 14y ago
  [2008]
• smegel 14y ago
  Fuck this guy gets on my nerves, acting like he's the only person in the world who knows what virtual memory is or that paging is some kind of dark magic only understood by kernel developers, rather than standard subject matter for any intro to computer architecture/OS concepts course.
  • PeterisP 14y ago
    It did feel useful, as many new programs actually do manage much of their data exactly as he warns not to - keeping an in-memory cache of something they're (re)reading from disk.
  • peterhajas 14y ago
    Whoa! Why the hostility? This article seems interesting, not arrogant.
    • jspthrowaway2 14y ago
      You'll often see comments like OP on articles or comments from Kamp. I've left some. Poul-Henning Kamp is a polarizing figure. I sympathize with the sentiment on occasion, and I'm occasionally annoyed by his writing style ("everything but Varnish is written poorly" is evident in this one). Another one that bothered me was You're Doing it Wrong[1]; great information, offensive tone -- most of his publications in Queue are the same way. That said, I can also disregard most of that annoyance as he's a genuinely smart guy, and I want to know what he's trying to tell me. Put it this way: I'd listen to anything PHK has to say, but I'd (probably) never hire him because I need to foster a team environment, and PHK can be divisive when he communicates. I'm sure the commenters you see commit karma suicide like this feel the same way and are just quite poor at communicating what I have. OP dug in on a detail, but reading the rest of his comment another way, it's a criticism of the writing style and tone (in my reading). [1]: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1814327
      • gruseom 14y ago
        I am impressed with how deftly you reframed (and redeemed) the GGP's bilious outburst. That was charitable of you, and makes me wish more people would do it.
  • cskau 14y ago
    It might be a subject matter for most, but how many can honestly say they make use of, and eventually even remember, it after years of programming in high level programming languages on modern OSs?
  • gliese1337 14y ago
    Consider: what proportion of programmers have taken an OS course? Specifically OSes, 'cause I know that virtual memory was not covered in any of the computer architecture courses I've taken. Now, how many of those programmers who know about virtual memory (larger than the number who have taken a course on operating systems, but still far from 100%, I'd wager) have actually realized "hey, virtual memory can make it so that I never have to explicitly write stuff to disk?" I certainly hadn't. Just because you expect people to know basic concepts, doesn't mean that an article explaining what they're useful for is useless. Quite the opposite, in fact.
    • LnxPrgr3 14y ago
      My experience has been that most programmers are more or less clueless about how virtual memory works. At best, they understand it as letting you swap out memory to disk when memory runs low. Even ignoring Kamp's "mmap the world" approach, if I brought up any of his other ideas in a meeting with most programmers, there'd be immediate cries of premature optimization (and reinventing the wheel, in the case of using a single malloc'd chunk for workspaces). Never mind what we're talking about building or what we already know about the performance of different approaches, and never mind that a lot of important performance decisions are architectural and are a lot harder to change later on. These ideas just aren't on most programmers' radar—it's all evil voodoo to be avoided at all costs to them. How many programmers know the effect of a write from one CPU on the next read from another CPU on the same cache line? How many programmers know the relative cost of a syscall vs. a function call? How many programmers ever think about optimizing their use of CPU cache? Most of the time they get away with ignoring these things because they really don't matter in context. But sometimes they don't get away with it because these things do matter, and in those moments I wish more programmers had a better understanding of their machines and their operating systems.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• georgemcbay 14y ago
  tl;dr - Premature optimization is (still) the root of all evil. I'm not familiar with squid, but I'm quite familiar with the idea of programmers writing their own systems on top of other systems that are basically a worse implementation of something the underlying system is already doing. To my chagrin, I occasionally catch myself doing this sort of thing once in a while when I'm first moving into new language/API/concept and don't really understand what is going on underneath. It is always a good idea to try the simplest thing that could possibly work first, and then measure it, and only then try to improve it and always make sure you measure your "improvements" against the baseline. And make sure you're measuring the right things. I think this is a concept most developers are aware of but one of those things you have to constantly checklist yourself on because it is too easy to backslide on.
  • marshray 14y ago
    Except that the primary purpose of a web cache is to utilize storage to avoid duplication of work. Caching is a fundamental operation the storage hierarchy, so as soon as the possibility exists that your cached data will exceed available physical RAM, you're "optimizing" disk IO whether you admit it or not.
  • qznc 14y ago
    One reason to reimplement something on top is portability. The tradeoffs between portability and performance are hard.
    • fleitz 14y ago
      It's still generally a bad idea, it's much better to write an interface and then provide multiple implementations that take advantage of the native features of the OS. I think we all remember the last that language that decided to be so portable they shipped their own reimplemented GUI toolkit with the standard library.
      • Deestan 14y ago
        > it's much better to write an interface and then provide multiple implementations That is a reimplementation.
• jwilliams 14y ago
  If you take the premise of this article literally - then since 1975 computers have gotten inordinately more complex, but we've developed no abstractions to help programmers deal with it.
  • dalore 14y ago
    Isn't it the abstraction (virtual memory) creating a problem in the first place? By programmers not understanding that an abstraction has been applied.
    • chris_wot 14y ago
      No. Virtual Memory has been known about since the early 60s, the issue was that the x86 architecture picked it up in the '90s with the 386 CPU. The problem with programmers not knowing how the operating system works is not the fault of the operating system, it's the fault of the developers.
  • jakejake 14y ago
    I rather thought he was saying that since 1975 there have been abstractions developed, but people aren't taking advantage of them. Or perhaps people are not trusting them in this case.
• javajosh 14y ago
  This article is one of those interesting things that doesn't affect me directly because I don't do systems programming, but holds a great deal of fascination. I've often wondered about how the kernel allocates memory and deals with disk, and how that affects the behavior of an application that may do it's own memory allocation. In object oriented programming there is a thing called a CRC card[1] where you list what the responsibilities of important classes are. This helps the developer visualize and understand how the system works, and to keep things as orthogonal as practical. Here we have an example of someone pointing out that the system-level "CRC cards" are stepping on each other's toes. Pretty compelling stuff. An aside - would there be any benefit to using `go` rather than `c` for writing something like varnish if you were starting in 2012? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-responsibility-collaboration_card http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-responsibility-collaborat...
  • SwellJoe 14y ago
    "An aside - would there be any benefit to using `go` rather than `c` for writing something like varnish if you were starting in 2012?" go isn't fast yet, from what I can tell. So, you'd be writing a slow proxy, for the time being. But, from a simplicity of design perspective, yes, it'd be awesome to work in a language with really good concurrency primitives. Proxies are an ideal example of an embarrassingly parallel problem; a thousand simultaneous users is a thousand independent tasks with very little shared state. go is designed for exactly this sort of task. And, in five years, by which time go will probably be really fast, you'll have a simple and fast proxy server.
    • jff 14y ago
      Go's pretty damn fast now. It's fast enough that we've got physicists writing simulations in it. It's fast enough that a lot of the people I know (systems and HPC guys) just write in Go unless they have to write in anything else. I've personally used it to write cluster management tools, a cpu-intensive simulation, a modem emulator, and a decent handful of servers. If nothing else, it's so easy to do concurrency that I end up hiding a lot of slowness.
• hakaaak 14y ago
  5.2% of the worlds top 10,000 websites use it, as of July 11, 2012: http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/07/11/how-popular-is-varnish/ http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/07/11/how-popular-is-varnish/ So the question is- if it is so great, why only 5.2%? I'm not being sarcastic. This is a totally serious question.
  • chris_wot 14y ago
    The same reason that Windows 3.1x was used when people could have been using X. Sometimes these things take a while to catch on.
    • rymith 14y ago
      Because X sucked. I hated X Windows, nothing worked right at all back then. Actually, the last time I used it, it still sucked. And how has X caught on?
      • chris_wot 14y ago
        Worked fine for me. X is very popular now. Don't know when you last used it, but "it still sucked" brings nothing to this conversation.
        • rymith 14y ago
          Very popular, to whom? Linux has what, 1% of the desktop market share. Linux is very popular on android, but I was pretty sure that Android didn't use X. That's like saying you were popular in High School because you had two friends. And apparently, from an article on HN, Ubuntu isn't going to be using it any further.
          • chris_wot 14y ago
            Very popular amongst Linux distributions, obviously not including Android. Sorry, is that the deafening silence of a non-answer to my question?
• marshray 14y ago
  Well, today computers really only have one kind of storage, and it is usually some sort of disk, the operating system and the virtual memory management hardware has converted the RAM to a cache for the disk storage. I used to think that too. Specifically Windows NT was said to need a pagefile at least as large as physical RAM. This was back when a workstation might have 16MB RAM and a 1GB disk. I thought this was because the kernel might be eliminating the need for some indirection by direct mapping physical RAM addresses to pagefile addresses. I was wrong. On the Linux side, you would typically see the recommendation to make a swap partition "twice the size off RAM". Despite the possibility of using swap files, most distros still give dire warnings if you don't define a fixed-size swap partition on installation. I don't think there was ever a solid justification for this "twice RAM" heuristic. A better method might be something like "max amount of memory you're ever going to need minus physical RAM" or "max amount of time you're willing to be stuck in the weeds divided by the expected disk bandwidth under heavy thrashing". Regardless, if your server is actively swapping at all you're probably doing it wrong. It's not just that swapping is slow, it's that your database or your web cache have special knowledge about the workload that, in theory, should allow it to perform caching more intelligently. I'd prefer to disable swap entirely, but there are occasions where it can make the difference in being able to SSH into a box on which some process has started running away with CPU and RAM. But this guy is a kernel developer so he seems to feel that the kernel should manage the "one true cache". I like the ease and performance of memory-mapped files as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't go sneering at other developers for attempting to manage their disk IO in a more hands-on fashion.
  • bcoates 14y ago
    On at least one (admittedly, misconfigured) system of mine, Linux got up to a working set around 4x physical RAM before kswapd became CPU bound instead of disk IOPS bound and everything stopped working. Assuming that anecdote is the usual outcome, you can justify the RAM:Swap ratio rule of thumb as an upper limit on how much swap can be usefully used for anything other than a band-aid on a memory leak. edit: NT really does need substantially more swap than most Linux configurations, as it always runs with the Linux equivalent of overcommit disabled and a high swappiness.
• coffeemug 14y ago
  So what happens with squids elaborate memory management is that it gets into fights with the kernels elaborate memory management, and like any civil war, that never gets anything done. This quote, much like various scientific quantum mechanics quotes adopted by the laymen, keeps haunting honest systems programmers because people with a little bit of knowledge read it, misinterpret (or misunderstand) it, and then share it. Look, I don't know how Squid is designed, but most database systems use this strategy and it does not get into wars with the kernel for a whole slew of reasons that aren't addressed in the article. I know, because we've done a ton of sophisticated benchmarking comparing custom use case cache performance to general purpose page cache performance. Here are a few of the many, many reasons why this quote cannot be applied to sensibly designed pieces of systems software: 1. If the database/proxy/whatever server is designed correctly, it'll always use just enough RAM that it won't go into swap. That means the kernel won't magically page out its memory preventing it from doing its job. 2. In fact, kernels provide mechanisms to guarantee this by using various mechanisms (such as mlock). 3. Also, if your process misbehaves, modern kernels will just deploy the OOM killer (depending on how things are configured), so you can't just get into fights with the page cache without being sniped. 4. Of course you have to be smart and read from the file in a way that bypasses the page cache (via DIRECT_IO). Yes, it complicates things greatly for systems programmers (all sorts of alignment issues, journal data filesystems issues, etc.) but if you want high performance, especially on SSDs, and have special use cases to warrant it, it's worth it. 5. If you really know what you're doing, a custom cache can be significantly more efficient than the general purpose kernel cache, which in turn can make significant impact on performance bottom line. For example, a b-tree aware caching scheme has to do less bookkeeping, is more efficient, and has more information to make decisions than the general purpose LRU-K cache. In fact, it is absolutely astounding how many 1975 abstractions translate wonderfully into the world of 2012. Architecturally, almost everything that worked back then still works now, including OS research, PL research, algorithms research, and software engineering research -- the four pillars that are holding up the modern software world. Some things are obsolete, perhaps, but far, far fewer than one might think. Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why I cringe when people say "the world is changing so fast, it's getting harder and harder to keep up". In matters of fashion, perhaps, but as far as core principles go (in computer science, mathematics, human emotions/interaction, and pretty much everything else of consequence) the world is moving at a glacial pace. Shakespeare might be a bit clunky to read these days because the language is a bit out of style, but what Hamlet had to say in 1600 is, amazingly, just as relevant today (and likely much more useful, because instead of actually reading Hamlet, most people read things like The Purple Cow, The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing, The 99 Immutable Laws of Leadership, etc.)
• halayli 14y ago
  I might be missing something here but assuming varnish is using mmap()+madvise(), accessing memory might block the thread until the page fault is served, which is not ideal for a user-facing server. If you manage your own memory/swap, at least you can use async IO and free up the thread while the IO request is being served by the OS.
  • reynolds 14y ago
    Varnish is heavily threaded. It maintains queues where connections are put and worker threads pull them out. It is expected that a single connection gets a dedicated thread.
    • halayli 14y ago
      Since each thread is an actual kernel thread, this will limit the concurrent connections to the maximum number of threads a kernel can handle which isn't that high.
      • Saavedro 14y ago
        Not as such. The connection itself can be accepted and put into a queue on a different thread than the one that serves the request. This means that only the actual number of requests concurrently being fulfilled (cached value is being retrieved from ram or storage, or is being written to the socket) is limited by the amount of kernel threads. With that in place that number doesn't really even have to be that high to handle lots of concurrent load.
      • wmf 14y ago
        Linux can create over 250,000 threads, but that may have been on a 32-bit system. On 64-bit it should be limited only by RAM.
        • halayli 14y ago
          The overhead of context switching becomes pretty high. Some say that context switching has become cheap, but you still at the very least need to update the tlb, and schedule the next pthread.
• mikeash 14y ago
  One thing to keep in mind with this talk of virtual memory is that current smartphones and tablets have basically regressed to the 1975 model when it comes to swap. That is to say, there isn't any. If you take the approach of "allocate plenty of memory and let the kernel sort out what should go to disk" then you'll end up killed by the OS if you're running on e.g. an iPhone, because there's no swap.
  • LnxPrgr3 14y ago
    Coming from iOS: You still get memory-mapped file I/O. There's no swap file, but you can still map files into virtual memory and the OS can page pieces in and out as necessary. Virtual memory isn't just about swap.
    • ComputerGuru 14y ago
      The point is: you still have to make a conscious move to prevent memory overload.
    • mikeash 14y ago
      I know that VM is more than just swap, but the way it was used in this article, it pretty much only discussed swap.
      • LnxPrgr3 14y ago
        "Varnish allocate some virtual memory, it tells the operating system to back this memory with space from a disk file." I'm pretty sure the article's talking specifically about mapping a gigantic file into memory and pretending it's all in RAM, and isn't talking about swap at all.
        • mikeash 14y ago
          It's hard to tell whether they mean that it's done explicitly or not: "...all we need to have in Varnish is a pointer into virtual memory and a length, the kernel does the rest." If you're manually memory mapping stuff, you'd need more than that. In any case, the first part of the article is definitely talking about swap when it comes to fighting with the kernel over whether something should be in RAM or on disk. Explicitly memory mapping a large file will work on iOS, although the lack of sparse file support on the filesystem would seem to make it painful.
• stcredzero 14y ago
  Here's the thing wrong with any kind of programming. The "best" way is highly contextual. Your situation, the OS, the hardware, the problem domain, the target market -- these all change the situation and bring their own particular trade-offs. There will always be something "wrong" with the way most anyone programs from the point of view of somebody not familiar with a particular situation.
• crazygringo 14y ago
  Wait a minute -- I'm not a sysadmin guy, but all the servers I've ever dealt with had swapping / virtual memory turned off. Because you'd rather a web request failed, then start churning things on disk. When you're dealing with a web cache, don't you want to explicitly know whether your cache contents are in memory or on disk, and be able to fine-tune that? It seems like the last thing you want is the OS making decisions about memory vs disk for you. Am I missing something?
  • mrb 14y ago
    Yes you are missing something. Varnish doesn't use the swap. Varnish uses regular files, cached in memory via the kernel's regular buffercache mechanism.
  • wmf 14y ago
    When you're dealing with a web cache, don't you want to explicitly know whether your cache contents are in memory or on disk, and be able to fine-tune that? The point of this article is that you think you want to control that, but you actually don't. The kernel can probably do a fine job. (Of course, PHK develops the kernel, so when it doesn't do what he wants he can just change it. Many others are not so lucky.) PHK is telling normal programmers to follow the rules; extraordinary ninja rockstar programmers are smart enough to know when to break the rules. If you want extremely high performance you should manage everything yourself, but this is so difficult to do right that documenting how to do it would just encourage people to shoot themselves in the foot. On a practical note, which is faster, HAProxy or Varnish?
    • miah_ 14y ago
      HAProxy isn't a cache. Its not a good comparison.
• ccleve 14y ago
  This article is wrong, just wrong. I would love it if there were just one kind of storage, and my code could ignore the distinction between disk and memory. But it can't, for three reasons: 10 ms seek times, RAM that is much smaller than disk, and garbage collection. 10 ms seek times mean that fast random access across large disk files just isn't possible. There is a vast amount of literature and research devoted to getting over this specific limitation. And it isn't old, either: all of the recent work on big data is aimed at resolving the tension between sequential disk access, which is fast, and random access, which is required for executing queries. RAM that is smaller than disk means that virtual disk files don't work very well when you have large data files. If you try to map more than the amount of physical RAM you get a mess: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12572157/using-lots-of-mappedbytebuffers-in-read-write-mode-slows-down-windows-7-to-a-cr http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12572157/using-lots-of-ma... Garbage collection means that it is easy to allocate a bit of memory, and then let it go when the reference goes out of scope. There's no need to explicitly deallocate it. It's one of the things that makes modern programming efficient. With disk, you don't get that; if you write something, you've got to erase it or disk fills up. In short, this guy's casual contempt for "1975 programming" is irksome, because it's clear that he isn't working on the same class of problems that the rest of us are. He may be able to get away with virtual memory for his limited application, but the rest of us can't.
  • chris_wot 14y ago
    What is a "virtual disk file"?
    • ramidarigaz 14y ago
      I think he is referring to mmap? Not entirely sure though...
      • chris_wot 14y ago
        Perhaps conflating swap files with virtual memory?
• taylorbuley 14y ago
  This is a really interesting talk by the author of this article and program: http://archive.org/details/VarnishHttpCacheServer http://archive.org/details/VarnishHttpCacheServer
• guilloche 14y ago
  I wish all that this guy said is true. I desperately wish a perfect virtual memory can relieve me from all the pains of caching. Take an example, in a word processor, can we just keep all possible cursor positions (for moving the cursor around) and all line-breaking, page breaking info, each character's location in virtual memory?
  • jff 14y ago
    Moving the cursor in a word processor is a people-time operation; as long as you can manage it in 100ms or so, it's "good enough". That shouldn't be hard, but somehow LibreOffice still manages to take multiple seconds to update the cursor location...
    • guilloche 14y ago
      Let me explain more on the details of moving a cursor: In a terminal, usually mono-width fonts with fixed font size are used, so cursor positions can be computedly easily. But for a word processor, variable-width fonts with variable font size are more common. To move a cursor to its next position, we need to know the width of current character, otherwise it does not know where to show the cursor. Should we cache these width or compute them in fly? It is more complicated if a word appears different from as a group of single characters in some languages. Should we cache character positions for these words? Should we keep them all in virtual memory? Computers may even have no swap partition allocated, can application just reject to run in this case?
      • jff 14y ago
        I understand that a word processor faces greater challenges in cursor positioning than a simple text editor--that's why I write my documents in LaTeX :) As for swap, I always figure that if you're hitting swap, you're dead. It's time to buy more RAM. I've had instances where running Firefox and a kernel compile at the same time on my 4 GB laptop turn it into an absolute thrashfest--I have to walk away for 15-30 minutes, because I cannot do anything at that point. Applications, even plain old xterm, are big enough that swapping them in and out makes the machine unusable.
• khitchdee 14y ago
  All this abstraction with garbage collection and virtual memory etc etc is only taking us further away from the hardware. In some ways its good to think like a 1975 programmer because you are acknowledging the fact that there's hardware underneath. If you completely ignore that and rely on the abstractions provided to you by an OS layer, the end result is you get a system that uses resources very wastefully. Look at how much software has bloated in the last 35 years. A large reason for that is the amount of abstraction of the hardware and lower layers of software we've started relying on. The more abstraction you use, the easier your job becomes, but it also results in a less lean system
  • chris_wot 14y ago
    My goodness, non-sequiturs wrapped in inconsistencies disguised by absurdity! Virtual memory uses CPU traps to do page faults in x86 land. Abstractions are useful and in fact even if you go all the way to assembly, you've still got a thin abstraction over the hardware. If you don't have an operating system, then no software will be written. If you look at software over the last 35 years, you'll notice it has become easier to use, and it does more complex things.
    • khitchdee 14y ago
      The memory, hard disk and CPU speed requirement of modern day PCs has also gone up substantially. I wouldn't call them lean. That, in my opinion, is where the future lies and to get there we have to get closer to the hardware, not abstract it away further. Most CS background programmers tend to leave the details of the hardware to the OS's abstraction layers thereby isolating themselves from the hardware designs of the EEs. In the future, we need design teams that do both. That's driven by the lean requirement.
• miah_ 14y ago
  Oh joy. “these days so small that girls get disappointed if think they got hold of something else than the MP3 player you had in your pocket.” An otherwise interesting article.
• guilloche 14y ago
  The article is misleading and the author has totally no clue on the complexity of user space memory management. Random on-disk virtual memory access will be a disaster if we just keep everything in so-called virtual memory without complicated cache mechanism.
  • dkokelley 14y ago
    Let's not resort to attacks on the author. Consider that this article is at least 4 years old.
  • cjg_ 14y ago
    Are you sure? PHK is a quite seasoned FreeBSD kernel developer and did phkmalloc which was used in FreeBSD for a long time, see http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/malloc.pdf http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/malloc.pdf.
• antirez 14y ago
  Sometimes it is a good idea, but it works only if: 1) You have a threaded implementation, otherwise your single thread blocks every time you access a page on the swap. 2) You have decently sized continuous objects. If instead a request involves many fragments of data from many different pages, it is not going to work well. There are other issues but probably 1 & 2 are the most important.
• jessedhillon 14y ago
  The first few lines mentioned "acoustic delay lines" which piqued my interest. Wikipedia has a page on this old technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory#Acoustic_delay_lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_line_memory#Acoustic_dela... It was a pretty amazing hack, before magnetic memory cores. Because sound moved at a slow rate through a medium like mercury, an acoustic wave (that is, a sound) could be applied to one side of a volume of mercury and be expected to arrive at the other end after a predictable, useful delay. So what would be done is that a column of mercury with transducers on both ends would function as speakers and microphones, which in an acoustic medium are the equivalent of read and write heads! The system memory would be a collection of these columns, each I guess storing one bit. The memory would of course have to be refreshed: when the signal arrived at the other end, it would be fed back into the column, assuming I suppose that there wasn't a new signal waiting to be written to that bit instead. The article mentions that this was not randomly accessible memory, but rather serially accessible. From that and other bits of information, I gather that the device would visit each bit in sequence, according to some clock, and produce a signal on the read line corresponding to the value in that bit. You had to wait for the memory device to read out the particular bit you were waiting for. Does anyone know if this a correct understanding of how this kind of storage worked? What a cool way to store bits!
  • fuzzix 14y ago
    An aside, I believe the early computer witnessed by Lawrence Waterhouse in Cryptonomicon used this mercury column system, it was described as visibly moving up and down inside the columns. I hadn't heard of anything like it at the time, it was an intriguing idea - I wasn't even sure Stephenson hadn't made the whole thing up.
    • phireal 14y ago
      I think the version in Cryptonomicon was based on actual sound waves (in tubes filled with air) rather than in mercury as the book mentions to noise coming from his laboratory.
  • geon 14y ago
    > Because sound moved at a slow rate through a medium like mercury Actually, it moves pretty fast through mercury; 1450 m/s. > each I guess storing one bit. (...) Does anyone know if this a correct understanding of how this kind of storage worked? From the Wikipedia article: > Typically many pulses would be "in flight" through the delay, and the computer would count the pulses by comparing to a master clock to find the particular bit it was looking for. > EDSAC, designed to be the first stored-program digital computer, began operation with 512 35-bit words of memory, stored in 32 delay lines holding 576 bits each > The average access time was about 222 microseconds Hmm... That would be a memory loop time of 444 us. At a speed of 1450 m/s, you need a delay line at least 64.38 cm long. And you'd need an impressive 1.3 Mb/s data transmission rate. Another interesting fact: > Since the speed of sound changes with temperature (because of the change in density with temperature) the tubes were heated in large ovens to keep them at a precise temperature. Other systems instead adjusted the computer clock rate according to the ambient temperature to achieve the same effect.
• martinced 14y ago
  I understand he's a kernel developer but to me this sounds exactly the same as people who kept repeating, since years: "Don't create a ramdisk (a true, fixed size, one, that you prevent from ever getting to disk) because the (Linux) kernel is so good and so sentient that you won't gain anything by doing that" Yet anyone compiling from scratch big projects made of thousands of source file know that it's much faster to write the compiled files to the ramdisk. I can't tell how many times I've seen this argument between "pro 'kernel is sentient'" and "pro 'compile into a real ramdisk'" but I can tell you that, by experience (and it's hard to beat that), the ramdisk Just Works [TM] faster than the 'sentient kernel'. So how is it different this time?
  • dchest 14y ago
    You mean, there's a performance difference between writing to RAM, and writing to RAM and flushing writes to disk every few seconds? Doh!