flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Petabox and the death of NTFS

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2917
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Maybe, Molecular QCA might solve the ?nm problem? Or, reversible logic to solve the energy efficiency problem? But I'd prefer a cultural shift to bottom-up techniques across the entire spectrum of manufacturing.
Post 10 Feb 2009, 03:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Who says that the transistor has to keep being made if silicon? This wall you talk about can be broken with other technology, maybe carbon nanotubes will be it, maybe something else. All of these same arguments (about "walls") are made over and over throughout the years and yet somehow they still manage to keep being surpassed. I'm saying we've got al least 10 more years of it until such physics limits become genuinely reached.
It already happened, after 5 years of research. Didn't I say already that Intel changed the transistor design? It's not made of sillicon anymore, but of metal. (after 50 years of same transistor design, they changed it, with 5 years of research!)

But no matter the material, you can't beat Quantum Physics. Sure, we probably will find something else than normal metal (uranium? Laughing) to put at the gate, but when we have 5 nm transistors, the gate becomes one atom thick or somewhere like that.

Simply put, you must have AT LEAST 1 atom of gate. Otherwise, you might as well not even make a gate at all, so no transistor.

revolution wrote:
Computers are considerably more efficient than previous generations. MIPS/mW has steadily improved. Just compare at the old ENIAC and a current laptop! Or take any previous design, even from 5 years ago compared to today. Much much more efficient. If I take my current crappy old laptop into a time machine and go back 20 years it would be the fastest computer on the planet (and only using ~30 watts at full speed). Very very efficient.
Yes but not all, especially some desktops. They overheat a lot faster and more, require advanced forms of cooling (or 'active', really old CPUs worked with passive just fine), etc...



The only alternative I am aware of (which is still fiction mind you) that can actually make computers faster (but more VOLUME at the same time, so not more 'efficient') is if we switch to light-based transistors and use light instead of electrons. This has the advantage of not generating heat, thus we can make a CPU with high volume to surface ratio.

Although basically this isn't an 'improvement' or 'more miniaturized' than previous CPUs, at least it will waste less energy and be more performant (even though it's bigger as in chip volume).

But the problems are: light transistors and light bending. Specifically, light transistors, even in some optimistic assumptions, will generate heat (block 'light' when the transistor is generating '0'), so we're back at overheating...

Also light can't bend 90° in such a small area...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 10 Feb 2009, 15:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Post 11 Feb 2009, 00:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That stuff isn't new, it's from 2004. And besides, that is very close to the "light" solution I presented.

And how does that solve the fact that we're at the end of the road? If we make that transistor with 5nm, what next? Light transistors won't show much of an improvement (they already don't generate much heat, I mean the ballistic transistors), so that's the end. The sooner that thing shows up, the sooner the end will be Wink

Unless of course we switch from digital to quantum computing -- but then we won't have bits nor bytes anymore so that doesn't apply.

this is also of interest, conveys some details. have fun Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Feb 2009, 00:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I don't agree that computers are becoming less efficient. Each new generation of CPUs is more efficient than the last. We only need to look at the MIPS/mW figures to see that. It is true that in total the power may increase but the amount of work done using that power increases by more.

IIRC the ENIAC was something like 150kW input power for 5KHz of computing speed. What is the MIPS/mW there? Today I have my ARM box with four CPUs running at 624MHz, it uses just 3W at peak performance.
Post 11 Feb 2009, 01:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2917
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Image

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 11 Feb 2009, 05:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Borsuc doesn't understand the diagram.
Post 11 Feb 2009, 17:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc: Click on the diagram, it has a link.
Post 11 Feb 2009, 17:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Ah thanks I feel dumb Embarassed

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Feb 2009, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
A "petabox" in your laptop could be here soon:

250 DVDs on a quarter.

Image
Post 19 Feb 2009, 20:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Is that a ROM type of thing?
They don't mention anything regarding how it will be read, the bandwidth, etc...

Looking at how expensive flash memory is today, and it has been into production for quite a while, and it's small, I'll just say I won't hold my breath. Still, 1 TB isn't much danger for NTFS anyway. Razz

But yeah one could build bigger than an inch, although it'll lose convenience. MicroSD cards are, for example, really small. I guess around 1 centimeter.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 20 Feb 2009, 01:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
I somehow doubt we're going to see petabyte storage for consumer computers anytime soon - even in 10 years. Yeah sure, harddrives have become extremely big, but just how much space does Mr. & Ms. Doe need? "360 degree movies" wouldn't really be possible to do in the way I think you mean, unless it's computer-generated instead of filmed - and then you probably might as well render it realtime instead of using insane amounts of storage.

But sure, NTFS isn't very well suited for huge storage pools, just like most of the other filesystems around today aren't. But what stops Microsoft from making a new NTFS version? Or a NNTFS? Smile

PS: google "ZFS boil ocean" and look around. There's a limit to just how much storage we're going to reach.
Post 20 Feb 2009, 07:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Well the movie thing is pure speculation, and I have no idea what the storage might be used for in Joe Averages PC, but I do think that if the storage is there then people will find a way to use it.

10 years? We'll have to wait and see, of course. Let's try to remember to revisit this thread 10 years hence Wink Should make interesting reading.

I've sometimes looked at old web pages talking about how "the 80586 CPU will be awesome, running at 500MHz, just insane speed, what would people need so much speed for?"! Hehe, how things have moved fast, anything under 2GHz is now considered slow.
Post 20 Feb 2009, 08:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
revolution: yes, you do have a point that things have moved fast and we have found ways to (ab)use whatever processing and storage capacity increases there have been. But even if running Vista, the average Joe doesn't need more than, say, 1GHz, 1gig ram and a modest integrated GPU to run it comfortably (which is more than you should need, sure, but my point is that the average Joe doesn't need state-of-the-art stuff Smile).
Post 20 Feb 2009, 09:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
f0dder wrote:
revolution: yes, you do have a point that things have moved fast and we have found ways to (ab)use whatever processing and storage capacity increases there have been. But even if running Vista, the average Joe doesn't need more than, say, 1GHz, 1gig ram and a modest integrated GPU to run it comfortably ...
It is not about need. We only need air, water, food, shelter. Anything extra is just greed.

I want a bigger HDD, faster CPU, more RAM, etc. And I expect to get it also (or at least it will become available to get). Technology only gets better.
f0dder wrote:
... (which is more than you should need, sure, but my point is that the average Joe doesn't need state-of-the-art stuff Smile).
But state-of-the-art today is run-of-the-mill tomorrow. Look at what you described as not state-of-the-art, just a few short years ago that would have been an "awesome" system.
Post 20 Feb 2009, 10:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
I don't need a faster system, but unlike the average Joe I can utilize it - for the average office, vacation pictures, web surfing you can get away with an underpowered netbook. I expect most people on programming forums to do "a bit more than that".

Oh well Smile
Post 20 Feb 2009, 10:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Look at what you are calling "underpowered", a few years ago that would have been an "awesome" system.
Post 20 Feb 2009, 11:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
I want a bigger HDD, faster CPU, more RAM, etc. And I expect to get it also (or at least it will become available to get). Technology only gets better.
revolution, how much do you need for emails or surfing the net? 256-Mbit color mode?

revolution wrote:
I've sometimes looked at old web pages talking about how "the 80586 CPU will be awesome, running at 500MHz, just insane speed, what would people need so much speed for?"! Hehe, how things have moved fast, anything under 2GHz is now considered slow.
You forget the programming factor. Many stuff can be considered. Even if you had the power but not the tools... research "slower but better" tools is costly. Sometimes there's the point of diminishing returns. For example, doing 10 years of research for a ultra-quality upscaling using a lot of your CPU or GPU to upscale resolution from 9000x9000 to 14000x14000 is... let's just say NOT WORTH IT because no one will notice the difference anyway. You won't even see a difference (the human eye has aprox. 9000x9000 res).

The more we "store" pre-rendered, the less processing power we'll need. The more people research into compression, the less storage but more processing power. Ironically BOTH of these "increase" as time passes (processing power & storage space). One of them rules the other Razz

There's always the point of diminishing returns. Also now everyone has the hype around multi-tasking, because they mostly cannot justify the huge amount of processing as most apps don't need it. (how much do you need to send an email? or to do other "technical" stuff?).

The ONLY area which requires more and more storage space is 'entertainment'.
Evidently even as Bill Gates said that no one will use more than some kilobytes of RAM (forgot what amount), he was speaking about a computer as a computing medium -- not for entertainment.

But you really have to take into account the production costs of such entertainment and other such difficulties. Audio has reached the point of diminishing returns already. 24-bit, or better, 32-bit @ 96Khz is more than enough. 192Khz is overkill but even THAT is already past the point of diminishing returns. And guess what? Filling up space with this format takes a lot of time and production. Which means huge costs. A 200GB+ sound library of orchestral musical instruments costs 20,000$ if I remember (or 5000$ but whatever). Plus you'll need ultra-quality and ultra-expensive microphones to record the stuff in that high format as otherwise there's no point in using it.

Some people are even satisfied with DVD quality compared to HD. The difference in quality becomes less and less as each generation passes (between subsequent generations). The difference between, let's say, VHS and DVD was obvious. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is less obvious. The next difference will be EVEN LESS obvious.

The only reason which might justify huge processing power are games or interactive real-time rendering. But not immense storage space. And probably not for reading emails anyway. You also have to take into account, if designers made 9000x9000 resolution textures, the costs of production would skyrocket. Just not profitable for what most people won't even notice.

Of course there's always huge computing scientific tasks but I doubt the average user cares about them Razz


As a programmer what would you need so much space for? It's not like applications themselves will get big. They aren't that big either, and bigger means MORE CODE which means more work and production costs. Granted, CPU performance might be useful (let's say, using advanced optimization compilers who are really slow), but space?

Nah, only for entertainment Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast


Last edited by Borsuc on 20 Feb 2009, 17:03; edited 1 time in total
Post 20 Feb 2009, 16:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17350
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
You forget the programming factor.
No I didn't, I AM a programmer. Wink
Borsuc wrote:
let's just say NOT WORTH IT
Let's just add one word to the end of that sentence "... today". But what about tomorrow?
Borsuc wrote:
... 32-bit @ 96Khz ... 192Khz is overkill ...
Fine, but that is only audio. So I agree we have solved that problem. Uncompressed audio will be no problem. But how about uncompressed video also? People are greedy (as I said above) they always want more (I know I do). So even though they may not really see the difference between HD and full uncompressed video they will still want it if it becomes available cheaply.

Anyhow, I don't know what future applications will be eating up the memory, maybe A/V maybe something else. Maybe we will all want to store our own personal DNA and use computers to develop custom drugs just for us. Not worth it ... today, but tomorrow?
Post 20 Feb 2009, 16:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
let's just say NOT WORTH IT
Let's just add one word to the end of that sentence "... today". But what about tomorrow?
Our eyes resolution doesn't improve as time passes... Razz

revolution wrote:
Fine, but that is only audio. So I agree we have solved that problem. Uncompressed audio will be no problem. But how about uncompressed video also? People are greedy (as I said above) they always want more (I know I do). So even though they may not really see the difference between HD and full uncompressed video they will still want it if it becomes available cheaply.
But then the CPU will lose it's factors and processing power. Less compression, less it is used, and post-processing isn't used either. So the powerful CPUs would lose their marketing.

Granted, compression algorithms are already very good, and there's no point in scrapping them. If anything, a video with the same size (but compressed) will look BETTER as it will probably have a lot more resolution than uncompressed. So if anything, compression will still be there.

And besides video and audio (and images for that matter) where would the huge storage be used for? (note: storage, not processing power).

revolution wrote:
Maybe we will all want to store our own personal DNA and use computers to develop custom drugs just for us. Not worth it ... today, but tomorrow?
ah yeah that could be one, how much does DNA store anyway? I mean just one sample of course, no need to copy it for every cell.

Still not something the average joe will do but anyway...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 20 Feb 2009, 17:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.