back

by lproven·5y ago·view on hn ↗
[Author of the piece here]

This is technologically out of date, I'm afraid.

You appear not to have read about Intel 3D Xpoint and related tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_XPoint3

This is retail tech now, under the brand name Optane: https://www.storagereview.com/news/intel-optane-dc-persisten...

SSD is cheaper than RAM. Optane is orders of magnitude cheaper, faster and longer-lived than SSD.

It is here now.

The value is discussed in the talk; I suggest reading the script. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wM1-c7euvQaRaCL4hKCaE8VR...

1 comments
I am aware of Optane.

But even in its current best, 2nd Generation Optane Memory DIMM and not the the Optane SSD, both its Latency and Bandwidth doesn't come close to DRAM. Even IBM innovation of OMI ( Open Memory Interface ), allowing Petabyte of Memory while only adding 10ns of latency to DRAM were already met with some scepticism. And Optane DIMM is at least adding 50ns at best, and hundreds at worst.

Our Multi-Core CPU, and the roadmap of SoC, merging CPU, GPU and VPU are already meet with some Memory Bandwidth bottleneck.

Intel has also stopped all consumer / retail of Optane. They will only be available on server and probably from selected partner from now on.

Optane is cheaper than DRAM per GB, but it isn't cheaper than NAND SSD unless you take into account of TCO. Which I would argue is still more expensive than SSD given the cost of SSD has declined quite a bit ( or back to normal depending on how you look at it ). But Optane ( both DIMM and SSD ) is faster than SSD especially in IOP heavy operation so it is still worth the money depending on applications.

Lastly, no one has a clear roadmap on Optane or 3D XPoint cost reduction. There is a difference of we want to reduce our cost and we know how to reduce our cost. 3D XPoint's Fab has been under utilize from Day one and are currently making a small loss even with Intel's guarantee purchase agreement. ( And Intel aren't selling all of them either ) There are nothing in the next 3 years that changes this landscape, and considering how technology moves, I would bet that 5 years down the line things would be about the same.

I dont want to be too dismissive. I would surely want Persistent Memory and a computer that just turned on like the old days with a press of power button. And the revival of SmallTalk like OS! But right now It doesn't seem feasible in the foreseeable future without some massive trade offs.

I am aware that it does not come close to DRAM, but it is faster than Flash, can be rewritten between thousands and tens of thousands of times more than Flash, and it is also byte-rewritable, unlike flash memory.

(I also specifically address some of the comparative issues in the talk.)

It is a significant step forwards. One of the problems with it is that current OSes can't really make good, efficient use of it.

That is what I am proposing a fix for – and one that should be relatively easy to implement.