2 ms·

I wouldn't say that 800MB/s is slow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC133 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC133 I also wonder if that 880 is for just one slot fill

by com2kid 12y ago

I wouldn't say that 800MB/s is slow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC133 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC133 I also wonder if that 880 is for just one slot filled up. If it is, then I wonder if you can parallelize to 4 slots for ~3.4GB/s. At that point, I imagine many types of data sets would work A-OK. Though I wonder how that's scaled for cores, given that in the situation I imagined above, you'd be streaming all that data to just one CPU to get that aggregate bandwidth. Hmm. OK what about some other scenarios? Being able to have RAM and Storage on a sliding partition is sort of cool. I wonder if it'd make provisioning VMs any easier. "How much RAM do you want? Set the slider!"

vidarh 12y ago
Yes, it is slow. PC133 is "ancient". As I pointed out, even in 8 year old hardware it was trivial to get more than 6 times that performance out of a RAM disk device using filesystem benchmarking tools. > If it is, then I wonder if you can parallelize to 4 slots for ~3.4GB/s You probably can, but then you can't run code straight out of it, or read/write data directly as if it is normal RAM. Putting a filesystem on it, RAID'ed over multiple slots will likely work great (especially so since it's easy to get servers with a ton of DIMM slots, and it'll allow much better server density than trying to fit in more drive slots). But treating it as RAM will be slow.