flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Petabox and the death of NTFS

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
That's triple channel, you can achieve similar boost with 3 Hard Disks for example (also that's RAM, seeing as even flash memory, which is solid state, is slower... so not just because of mechanical parts).
Hmm, still thinking inside the box? FLASH memory technology today is quite slow, so what. Doesn't mean we will be using it in 10 years time. SM, by its nature, is best suited to streaming data (in and out) so larger transfers are preferred. This means two main things: 1) SMs can be designed with massively wide internal buses that transfer data to the interface circuitry (as already happens with NAND flash today), and 2) the interface can be ANY speed you desire, there is no limit to how you interface it. If the need is required it can be interfaced to quad-channel-256-bit-1GHz-synchronous buses. As long as the transfer size is large enough, any internal access times can be hidden, and reading/programming is done in parallel. I hope that will be the end of the "interface speed" debate, it really is a non issue, it can be overcome if the need requires it.
Post 13 Apr 2009, 01:54
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
You can't use quad-channel without having 4 cards, because triple channel only works with 3 memory modules, otherwise cranking up that space for transmission, especially because of limited clock speeds and interference, is difficult.

See my example with the processors, why 2 aren't better than 1 if both are the same model. Heck I could buy TODAY 100 computers/processors and say my computer is from the future, by that logic?
Post 13 Apr 2009, 01:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
You can't use quad-channel without having 4 cards, because triple channel only works with 3 memory modules, otherwise cranking up that space for transmission, especially because of limited clock speeds and interference, is difficult.
Who is to say that an SM doesn't have four edge connectors that plug into an equivalent 4 receptacle slot on the mobo? The interface connectors of today don't have to still be used in 10 years time. Of course I don't know what is likely to be used but my example above is just to show that it is entirely possible to solve the interface speed, it is not an unsolvable restriction.
Post 13 Apr 2009, 02:03
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: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
G.E. also added: "the day when you can store your entire high definition movie collection on one disc and support high resolution formats like 3D television is closer than you think.''
Post 28 Apr 2009, 02:05
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
This holographic disk thing, rather twice the storage (1TB) should have become "mainstream" since 2006 Laughing Pioneer already has made before a 16-layer Blu-ray with 250GB last year I think.

Also the thing with 3D movies is just a buzzword to gain attention, can't believe you fall for marketing shit. I assume it means full 3D, not just stereoscopic? Imagine the costs of FILMING such a movie.

And 500GB is too few for it, you'll need 35TB or so for an extra dimension (with current compression, which would actually be worse since the image data wouldn't be so correlated as in a smaller 2D viewpoint, so less compression). And equally powerful bandwidth.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Apr 2009, 23:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Indeed, the 3D thing is a buzzword, and I doubt it would be "full" 3D, merely stereoscopic. But I had to include that to keep the quote intact. I'm not really a fan of 3D (stereoscopic) movies, there are too many restrictions when watching. Things like special eyewear and/or limited viewing positions will keep it in the fringe market. BTW: How did you calculate 35TB?

Regardless of what data is eventually put there, I am happy to see a consumer level removable medium storage product with large size. That can never be a bad thing.
Post 29 Apr 2009, 01:20
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:
Indeed, the 3D thing is a buzzword, and I doubt it would be "full" 3D, merely stereoscopic. But I had to include that to keep the quote intact. I'm not really a fan of 3D (stereoscopic) movies, there are too many restrictions when watching. Things like special eyewear and/or limited viewing positions will keep it in the fringe market. BTW: How did you calculate 35TB?
I don't remember, it was late. It was taking simple assumptions. For example:

HD Blu-ray movie takes, let's say, 25GB. This is in two dimensions, of "1920x1080", but in "average" these two amount to 1440. (I have to use this to extrapolate a third one).

Divide 25 GB by 1920x1080, and you get the number of frames in average compression. (of course not very reliable but you get the idea). Use that and multiply by 1440^3 (extrapolated dimension) and see how it'll take up. (35 TB)

Obviously this has too many assumptions, and compression can only get worse, but it's just an example. Personally I wanted to see where it would land, at least on what order of magnitude Wink

(I know that 3D movies will not be so dense as they will likely be just 2D in a circle -- however that is too hard to calculate for a simple exercise as I have wanted to make -- so yeah it's just not very good).

revolution wrote:
Regardless of what data is eventually put there, I am happy to see a consumer level removable medium storage product with large size. That can never be a bad thing.
Well I was never actually a fan of optical media/discs. They are too fragile. They may be big but in my experience even a hard disk (external for example) is more reliable, and they can be found for more capacity usually, if you really need it.

I'm waiting for flash to catch up cause I find it the most reliable, and I want lower prices so I can put my backups on it -- around 64GB is enough for my critical stuff... but too expensive right now Sad

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 30 Apr 2009, 19:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Hehe, you are making 3D into a fully populated pixel grid. But we don't see inside things, we can only see the surface. "full" 3D (if it is ever developed) would most likely be a surface texture mapping in two forms, shape and colour. How could we record data from inside an actor for a 3D pixel grid Confused The mind boggles! Confused Confused
Post 30 Apr 2009, 19:32
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: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I see that now high speed 2TB drives are commercially available. Only 9 more doublings to go to get to 1PB.
Post 11 Aug 2009, 01:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
windwakr



Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 827
Location: Michigan, USA
windwakr
Wow, 2TB?? That's huge! Seriously, what normal user would need SO MUCH SPACE?
Post 11 Aug 2009, 01:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
windwakr wrote:
Wow, 2TB?? That's huge! Seriously, what normal user would need SO MUCH SPACE?
Ever heard of the P word?

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 11 Aug 2009, 02:00
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: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Actually the 2TB has been commercially available sine Feb this year, this is the high speed version this month. That always seems to be the cycle for HDDs. First is the new generation double size drive at slow speeds, then later, the high speed versions as reliability is improved to make it possible to go faster, then repeat; another new generation double size slow drive etc.
Post 11 Aug 2009, 02:12
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
Man I got a 750GB drive with my new comp, just cause wanted it to last me. The thing is, I didn't even reach the 160GB limit yet (my previous HDD). lol I dunno what to do with it, but I'm glad I have so much free space for nothing. Makes me feel... more secure. (but really, now I understand that I prolly won't need more than 750 with my next one Laughing)

(I also enclosed it in a HDD heatsink in 5.25" drive bay: to be honest, I never expected it to be so efficient in cooling it wow, I expected just silence!).

I'm eagerly awaiting for SSDs to drop in price, I want a 256GB one cheap like current HDDs. That would be AWESOME.
Post 11 Aug 2009, 19:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I see that a couple of HDD companies are saying 3TB for 2010 and 4TB for 2011.

SSDs have the wear problem. I'm not yet convinced that even with the wear levelling algorithms that the drives can last as long as an average HDD. Some FS drivers write a lot of stuff in the background, especially the journalling FSs. Time will tell I guess.
Post 12 Aug 2009, 01:08
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
With a million or so writes it will last much more than "an average HDD" since these days they break easily, that's why I don't like them Confused

Is there a way to disable journalling? (I already disabled the stupid timestamp updating of NTFS).

Also, for temporary storage, you can use a virtual ramdisk and have less writes to the HDD.
Post 12 Aug 2009, 18:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
With a million or so writes it will last much more than "an average HDD" since these days they break easily, that's why I don't like them Confused
If it writes once per second for a million seconds then that is not a very long time.
Borsuc wrote:
Is there a way to disable journalling? (I already disabled the stupid timestamp updating of NTFS).
Yes. Choose FAT when formatting the drive.
Borsuc wrote:

Also, for temporary storage, you can use a virtual ramdisk and have less writes to the HDD.
Sure, if you don't mind losing it when the power is lost.
Post 12 Aug 2009, 18:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Quote:

Yes. Choose FAT when formatting the drive.


Well, you will face file size limitations and lack of file permissions too.
Post 12 Aug 2009, 18:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The best thing that ever happened to file systems is the inclusion of journalling. I really really hated having to recover the FAT drives whenever there was a power failure or OS crash. I would now never consider going backwards and live without a proper journalling FS.
Post 12 Aug 2009, 18:41
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:
Sure, if you don't mind losing it when the power is lost.
I have an UPS. I'm not crazy to go without one when fluctuations exist to damage my hardware. I couldn't care less about my last day's work if my hardware gets fucked, including the hard disk itself. So obviously, I have an UPS.

If power does go down, I copy the stuff from the ramdrive, takes around 5-6 seconds to copy 1 GB from it (that is its size, but of course I will probably never need 1GB lol).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 12 Aug 2009, 22:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
If power does go down, I copy the stuff from the ramdrive, takes around 5-6 seconds to copy 1 GB from it ...
Wow, you can get ~200MB/s transfer to your HDD! Shocked I guess it must be the latest SATA interface at 3Gb/s? I've not had the chance to try these latest drives lately.

[edit]
The fastest drive I can find is the Seagate Cheetah 15K.5. Even that can only get to 125MB/s for such a large transfer as 1GB (and that is with a 3Gb/s interface). What drive are you using? I am curious to see what you bought that is so fast.
Post 13 Aug 2009, 05:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 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.

Powered by rwasa.