3 ms·
True, but gotta wonder how much better this latency is than a more reasonable amount of RAM backed by a super-fast SSD.
by habosa 13y ago
True, but gotta wonder how much better this latency is than a more reasonable amount of RAM backed by a super-fast SSD.
- rwallace 13y agoIt depends on locality I suppose. If your workload is spatially local, you're good on this machine and might also be good on a bunch of smaller boxes. If spatially nonlocal but temporally local, your solution might work well. If also temporally nonlocal, this machine might be your best bet; even if latency hurts bad, it might still be better than on any other hardware.
- frozenport 13y agoThere isn't a bus with the characteristics you mentioned. For example, SATA 3 saturates at 1 GBps. A few years ago I measured something like 50GBps on these guys. The real trick is to walk a graph with multiple processors so that you saturate the bus. That being said I liked the Yarc data architecture more.
- andruby 13y agoThat's why the fastest SSD's use PCI Express instead of SATA. [1] http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive-octal/ http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive-octal/ (6GB/s)
- frozenport 13y agoThere is an interesting story here, take a look at the benchmarks http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/04/07/ssd_write_drop_off.jpg http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/04/07/ssd_write_drop_off.jpg I did a bunch of work with SSDs and trying to get high throughput, at the end of the day I could touch ram at 10 megabytes per millisecond but only do IO at 2 megabyte per millisecond.