No More Rebooting?
blankmange writes: "This headline caught my eye: 'The End of Computer Rebooting.' Seems that there has been some new developments in memory technology: The new thin-film technology that could give rebooting the boot is based on resistor logic rather than the traditional transistor logic used in most PCs and other memory-enabled devices. It also is considerably faster than current memory systems and holds the promise of reducing the time required to transfer and download multimedia content and other massive files. This is great news, but what am I going to do with the extra hour or so a day?"
I've been waiting for this technology for over five years...when??? When??
When it's done, of course! (Please don't sue me Id Software)
So I guess this puts a big damper on Microsoft Tech Support. "I don't know what to do, please restart your computer."
So if I can't reboot, how am I supposed to recover from Windows crashes?
My Win2k boxen are stable enough to be up for months without a reboot. What I need is a box that I can leave on 24-7 and not have to worry about energy consumption. These things are expensive to leave awake all day. Seriously. Do the math.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
How else are we supposed to fix things when everything just stops working...
Rebooting is always a great way to fix things.... they even used it one of the star trek's once.
And how the hell is windows supposed to work?
But we can pretty much do this at the moment by using the various suspend and hibernate options. Ok, so it's a different technology but the effect is the same. But nobody not using a laptop ever does.
Sig is taking a break!
Like your computer, you need downtime (sleep, walking the dog, eating, etc).
If you are an avid computer user, you may only get your downtime when your computer is rebooting. This is especially true in workplaces where people are "chained" to their computers trying to finish a project, etc.
Those ergonomics posters on the wall do very little to get an average 'puter user to take care of themselves.. reboots served some of this purpose.
(Maybe that is why windows crashes so much - it's Bill Gates' gift to the employee!)
In any case, perhaps all offices should institute a staggered mandatory 15 minute inactivity period every couple of hours for each active computer.
Goat sex free since 2001
Easy -- get a second job, 'cause its probably going to cost all the extra cash you have to get stuff built with this, just because of the patent licensing rights...
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
This seems like a bad bad title. This stuff is persistent RAM, so it won't help you if you need to reboot after recompiling a kernel. Also, this article doesn't mention getting rid of POST...most computers stuff some data into memory and check it to make sure your ram is still working. Would be kind of hard to check your memory if it has stuff in it that you don't want to lose.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
It just talks about memory that doesn't lose state when you hit the power button on your PC.
We've got to invent perfect software that can run forever without needing to be restarted, first.
Well, rebooting is MUCH more that just recovering the memory content!!
We could easily dump the memory contents onto the hard drive straigh away and we are not doing it (except in laptops, but even there it doesn't always work) This is because rebooting reinitializes various devices and takes care of the time jump (i.e. crons, anacrons, etc). The more complicated your system is the less likely it is that you are going to survive without booting.
Also, computers are now 1000 times faster than 10 years ago and they take much more time to boot (DOS did it in seconds on 286).
What the hell am I gonna do when the boss comes in and my puter is off and I tell him, oh im just rebooting.
Second, isnt resistor logig analog, and not binary (transistor) ?
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
The press release doesn't really go into detail, so I don't know how similar (or disparate) the respective IBM and Samsung solutions are. They do both have the same net effect for users: non-volatile main memory.
This is cool stuff, but what hasn't been said is that as long as operating systems and applications leak memory, there will be a need for reboots.
Ciao.
Last time I checked, downloading speed depended on your connection, not how fast your RAM goes. I'm sure my memory can handle more than 1.5 Mb/s but that's as fast an I can download, because that is the limit of my DSL line.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
What the article seems to be saying is that there could be a way of producing non-volatile memory which is so cheap, you'll be able to use NVRAM instead of ordinary RAM in your computers. But that depends on no further falls in RAM prices - I wouldn't bet on this technology taking over.
However, a cheap, fast non-volatile memory which can be written and read unlimited times could be a very useful supplement to RAM. Think journalling filesystems for example - put your ext3 journal in a 100Mbyte NVRAM device and you'd hardly need to touch the hard disk for hours at a time, given moderate use. (Eg notebooks could spin down the drive.) This is possible already, but NVRAM devices are relatively expensive and most PCs don't have them.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
People: Read the frelling article. This isn't 'an end to rebooting', it's highspeed nonvolatile memory that could theoretically be used to replace mass storage and RAM simultaneously. Although this would speed up booting a bit, it would not obviate rebooting entirely.
In fact, on some OSen (cough, Windows, cough) it could be very dangerous - if there's only one copy of the OS code in this combination memory, you can't reboot and reload a fresh copy from disk - meaning bugs have a significantly greater probability of rendering your system unusable.
Sounds like fun, right?
--
Damn the Emperor!
Is a rare voluntary reboot really worth the unmentioned price?
What about when W2K or NT or 95/98, etc. decides to not quite completely clear out of a particular area of memory? Will this plan still flush it out for me??? I hope so...if so...this COULD do alot for Windows stability.
"This is great news, but what am I going to do with the extra hour or so a day?"
Extra hour a day?! So... Err... You're a windows user, right?
Back at the dawn of time, I was programming a (Data General) Nova II mini-computer which had "core" memory (which is where the term "core dump" comes from). Core consisted of tiny doughnut (ummm doughnuts) shaped magnets with (read/write) wires through it. It was incredibly slow by today's standards, but it did retain memory even when powered down. I'd shut the machine down at the end of the day. The next morning, I'd turn it on, and immediately pick up where I left off.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Hmm. Rebooting nowadays with 'traditional' OSes is to flush inappropriate state information out of the memory - an unusual sequence of events resulting in the system getting into a state it should never be in during regular operation....this might be either accidental (a crash) or semi-deliberate (an upgrade of a software component which needs a reboot to get it co-ordinated with the rest of the system). Having memory which maintains this state information will make the problem worse, not better!
What's needed here to achieve systems that don't need rebooting is operating systems which deal with all of these unusual events and states correctly..this means they'll catch errors and will be specifically designed to allow things like dynamic update to system compoents. I'm probably a bit biased but the best example a no-more-reboots kind of environment I see today is the OSGi.
C'mon, I know that I have to reboot windows every couple of days to get rid of libraries that errant programs didn't unload and windows doesn't seem to let go of.
;)
Also, what if computers weren't *allowed* to reboot. You couldn't run a dual boot system. Which is something I suspect Microsoft would like. (I had to throw in a groundless msoft conspiracy...
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
The article is not even clear on whether this development is supposed to be replacing RAM or hard disks. But either way, it cannot eliminate the need for rebooting. The primary reasons for rebooting are either to reset the operating system to a known state, or to upgrade low-level software (such as the kernel in Linux, or your web browser in Windows). Neither of these necessities go away with non-volatile RAM, regardless of how fast, cheap, or capacious it may be. These are software issues, and they need software solutions.
use constant PERL_IS_BROKEN => $] >= 5.006;
On many systems, mandatory, periodic rebooting is part of the ressource management of the operating system (think of memory leaks, descriptor leaks, and so on). Even if you implement RAM using ferrite-core memory (or something else, like this new approach), these maintainance reboots won't go away, and they won't become faster.
In any case, such memory devices would be great for storing the journal of certain file systems, or even as replacement for traditional mass storage.
How would this have anything to do with faster downloads of multimedia content? I didn't even see that in the article, but this has nothing to do with bandwidth.
Flash is the speediest memory technology? Surely they mean speedier than eeprom.
How does this prevent reboots? I say without any doubt whatsoever, that the majority of reboots has to do with M$'s ~90% marketshare and numerous system level flaws. Does this memory plug its own leaks? Or do third rate OS programmers and ugly billionaire monopolists actually become smarter when exposed to this, sorta like Superman and kryptonite?
Verdict: Marketing fluff.
Or just get a laptop with the slight performance hit: 30 watts, plus a built in UPS supply. Other advantages include easy to transport to another location without removing dozens of cables or powering down.
Less heat, less power, why haven't these caught on?
Or do laptops have a habit of mysteriously walking away compared to their boat anchor bretheren?
I suppose this could be useful on systems that can do suspend-to-RAM, like laptops. Such systems still need a trickle of energy from the batteries to keep the data stored in memory from decaying.
Also, a system with persistent memory would be like the old mainframe and minicomputers that had core memory. In the event of a crash, the memory could be examined. I suppose this could be somewhat beneficial to operating system developers..
As I've already seen alluded to in other posts, surely there will be need for Win XX machines to get back to the initial start state after they've crashed. I am starting a company that will sell reset buttons to accomplish this. No *nix users in the target market -- sorry.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
It seems to me that we're not understanding how this could be set up.. Why not have this as a device in your machine, that has an interface to the BIOS, where the user can set/format the unit to fool an OS into treating this nv memory-space as a fat32 or ext2 disk? You go into the BIOS, flush out the nvramdisk and 'reformat' and you are ready to re-install your OS should that become necessary. The rest of the time it runs as a really fast 'C:'... There's no need to replace normal RAM as your actual main memory during operation. Windows need not be aware of what is actually happening, you just boot/use faster, that's all.
This is an appalling summary - and the article is no better.
"The technology is highly suitable for broadband Internet connections, Hsu said, noting that it combines the features of low voltage, high speed and low power consumption."
Yes, fantastic. That's great for those broadband internet connections. Faster memory is always good, but choosing this as an application is just a moronic use of buzz words.
"Ignatiev said the new technology is about 1,000 times faster than flash, which is nonmechanical and currently the speediest memory on the market. "
Flash memory is the fastest type of memory on the market? No, it is a form of non-volatile memory, which is very slow by RAM standards.
"is based on resistor logic rather than the traditional transistor logic"
Actually, you'll find that DRAM in most modern computers are capacitative devices - the techniques to make them are the same as MOS transistors, but they do not use switching to store values, IIRC.
I wish people would not spout such rubbish.
Basically, strictly speaking this isn't preventing 'rebooting', it is enabling a system to boot really fast and load the state of the OS from non-volitile memory and have the state preserved. This just allows the boot process to skip the OS initilization bit (which is significant, but excludes BIOS startup).
This has been around (save-to-disk hibernation), though using non-volitile memory would increase the speed of the process could increase dramatically. It seems that they are proposing a non-volitile ram technology that claims comparable performance to the volitile memory we use today, so it would be always ready to restore from that state, even if the shutdown is unexpected (power outage, for example).
However, the annoying part of the boot process to me is the PC Bios. After it's part is done, I can tweak things to start fast, but BIOS, even after tweaking is unbearably slow. I presume on restart a computer may still go through BIOS before restoring state, and even then I presume it needs to offer the option of starting over (don't want a BSOD to be permament). I'm more interested in a BIOS that doesn't take forever to come up...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I see the reboot issue as minor, compared to the other potential advantages of this technology. I will expect to be rebooting, for one reason or another, for years to come and am not too bothered.
The article glosses over what I consider the important advantages:
- [assumedly] great power savings. Great for portables and remote embedded systems.
- No moving parts! If this tech can really replace and even surpass in speed, Hard Disk Drives, reliability and performance should make a gain of at least an order of magnitude.
I've been waiting for years for computers to become eletronic-only devices. I've harped before that CRT's (vaccum tubes, for God's sake!) and HDD's need to join the Dodo in oblivion. This new tech, in the common mass storage area (HDD's, CD'c, floppies), along with flat panel technology, would put us right on the verge of that ideal. The last hurdle would be cooling without moving parts.
I understand that's booting and not rebooting that technology promise to get rid of. But how did you do hardware reset, IRQ/DMA peripherical association without a boot sequence? How the CPU state is stored to go back where you have been before shut down (as CPU registers are not stored in main memory)? Did you need special OS to detect this kind of memory and work with it?
Check out Squeak, the free, portable Smalltalk machine. Like all Smalltalks, Squeak runs in an "image". The image is your entire language, programming environment, and execution environment, all at once.
The interpreter, programming tools, and even the GUI all exist as long-lived objects in this large (sometimes very, VERY large) memory space. When you aren't using Squeak, the image gets stored as a file on disk.
There are also projects to run Squeak on bare metal--no intermediate operating system like Windows or Linux. Squeak itself becomes the operating system.
This memory technology would be ideal for a Squeak machine. The image would always live in NVRAM. In such a case, there isn't a distinction between the operating system as it exists in static form (files on disk) and executing form (code in memory). There are always just objects in memory. Very elegant.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
Your first paragraph showed you at least read the article, the second paragraph is a nonsequitor. It's not clear to me why you think Windows would somehow be negatively impacted by this and no other OS would. Look at the number of times changes have had to be made to the Linux kernel in order to get it to boot on new hardware such as the Pentium 4.
Isn't it likely that if this technology came to pass, the people responsible for various OSen would test their OS in that environment, and make changes as appropriate to support it?
Interesting highlights:
The trasentric paper quoted Electronic Buyer's News:
The interesting elements of this:- Much of this research is funded by a DARPA contract which means it is the money of US Taxpayers at work.
- Samsung is part of the same contract.
Methinks that perhaps Samsung and IBM are using the same (or very similar) technology.The Wired article is fairly lengthy and also details the biography of Stuart Parkin. Parkin is the IBM fellow that has been driving most of the MRAM research.
Ciao.
This computer's sooo fast I can reboot TWICE as often in half the time!
(Yeah, yeah, there'll be a glib Windows sux reply to this one, I'm sure.)
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
I assumed they were talking about Windows PCs, and my first thought was "How does memory keep the machine from crashing?"
Then I realized that they meant "turn on the computer for the first time today" booting, not RE-booting. Doesn't affect me, the only machine I ever turn off anyway is my laptop.
This is great news, but what am I going to do with the extra hour or so a day?
Find a better operating system.
reduces time required to transfer and download multimedia content and other massive files.
Now I'm really nosy how in freak'n hell any memory technology can reduce multimedia download times? That's just non-sense, it seems the word "multimedia" must be in everything you want to sell.
Download times dependand on things like your internet connection, compression used, your providers connetion, etc. but not my memory.
I still remember an intel guy claiming thi Pentium 3 will make the internet faster... how can somebody even dare to claim nonsense like this? And the really sad thing is: nobody started laughing as he said that...
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
The reason for the original poster picking on Windows is that Windows, in most folk's experience, has to be rebooted frequently because of error accumulation. In other words, I could leave my Win98 box running (with no additional applications up) for 12 hours and when I came back it would be locked up. This isn't about shutting down during upgrades or installs, it's about shutting down because of frequent OS corruption during everyday use. In this case, you *need* memory to clear itself out.
"Can I say you're my lovepuppy?" Founding member of SODAMNHOTT
As always, hardware is ahead of software
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
What's so exciting exactly? They invented faster FLASH memory.
This is not the end of rebooting computers and, unfortunately, not the end of mechanical hard drives.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Most likely, we will still partition disks; but instead of a swap file, you'd probably reserve a coule of gig for "memory space" where programs make a copy from the "disk space" for running.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
As long as we are swinging around our uptimes. True, this box doesn't do a whole lot, but still... Can anybody top this? ;-)>
ls-1010>sh vers
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) LS1010 WA3-7 Software (LS1010-WP-M), Version 11.2(15)WA3(7), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Copyright (c) 1986-1998 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Mon 14-Dec-98 16:54 by integ
Image text-base: 0x600108D0, data-base: 0x60448000
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 201(1025), SOFTWARE
ROM: PNNI Software (LS1010-WP-M), Version 11.2(5)WA3(2b), RELEASE SOFTWARE
ls-1010 uptime is 3 years, 6 weeks, 5 days, 23 hours, 56 minutes
System restarted by reload at 07:54:52 MNT Sat Feb 27 1999
System image file is "slot0:ls1010-wp-mz.112-15.WA3.7", booted via slot0
cisco LS1010 (R4600) processor with 32768K bytes of memory.
R4600 processor, Implementation 32, Revision 2.0
Last reset from power-on
1 Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 interface(s)
13 ATM network interface(s)
125K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.
16384K bytes of Flash PCMCIA card at slot 0 (Sector size 128K).
8192K bytes of Flash internal SIMM (Sector size 256K).
Configuration register is 0x102
ls-1010>
The technology to prevent you from having to reboot your computer daily can be found here and here. It's been around since the early 90's, and was invented by a grad student...
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Much of this research is funded by a DARPA contract which means it is the money of US Taxpayers at work.
So are we really talking about desktop PC's or something more like a missile fire control system on a warship which needs to work straight after being forcably power cycled, before the next bomb or antiship missile is launched at it?
This is what memory was like in the olden days, before DRAM took over from core memory. Apparently early DRAM computers had big piles of batteries in the bottom of the RAM cabinets to prevent the memory from failing due to a power cut.
More likely to have been Static RAM (SRAM) which holds it's data as long as it is powered. Dynamic RAM (DRAM) needs to be constantly accessed to retain it's data. It is also possibly to have so called Psudo-Static RAM. Which is DRAM with refresh hardware closely associated with it, e.g. on the same chip.
Well, that is as cute as I can be this morning, but I hope the point is clear. I was willing to reboot an XT running MS-DOS 2.0 from time to time - it was a crude system and we didn't expect too much of it. But the "reboot" virus has spread FROM Microsoft systems all the way INTO the world of distributed controls. I actually have control system techs say to me "reboot and see what happens". Hello! It isn't supposed to be this way! Systems (particularly embedded sysetms) are supposed to work, not not work!
Faster rebooting would be a crime, not an improvement, since it would help take everyone's attention off the problem, which is that the system failed.
sPh
Where do they come up with this stuff? Unless your memory is Extremely slow, and I mean slower than anything used in personal computers since the days of the Altair, AND you are using a faster than 10M net connection (not realistically possible on an altair) on that slow memory, this will have ZERO effect on download speeds. Any computer faster than a 386 can handle damn near GigE where the limiting factor will be the PCI bus, disks, etc. - not the memory. (well, maybe non GigE on a 386, but 100M easily.) Sheesh.
Considering I can't even get DSL or Cablemodem service in SILICON VALLEY, I don't think we will be seeing memory speeds being the limiting factor in downloads anytime soon - like not in the next 10 years even if computers stopped getting faster.
Honestly, at the risk of sounding cliche, real unix systems, that are bound to their hardware have fantastic uptime. The RS6000 we've had for a year has only been taken down for failover testing. If the resolution is hardware based then this Wintel duopoly isn't of much use. But the biggest question is, what will help desk people do if they can't tell people "Reboot the system." to take care of the problem. The vast majority of them may actually have to be trained in technical problem resolution. Millions will be thrown out of work (because it obviously exceeds their capabilities). Its the fragile nature of Windows that keeps the economy moving! Hopefully they will rethink this before its too late.
So it is non-volatile RAM. That makes four distinct NV-RAM technologies that I know of: battery-backed SRAM (fast, expensive, and low capacity), Flash and other electrically eraseable PROM's (slow writes, wears out), magnetic RAM, and resistive memory. The first two have been on the market for years, and capacity/price are nowhere near competitive with hard drives, although they are used where capacity can be much less than a PC needs and the environment is hostile to hard drives. MRAM is now being sold in small quantities, I think, but it's too young to tell how price and performance will work out.
What I did not see was any reason at all for thinking that resistive RAM would work out to a low enough price to be a hard drive replacement. I'll believe that, with enough work on the production process, it can beat SRAM on price and Flash on write speed (these aren't hard targets), but it has a very long way to go to compete with DRAM on price or speed, and then the price has to go down another 100 times to compete with hard drives. OTOH, start selling boxes with 256M of NVRAM and good non-bloated instant-on software, and maybe people will prefer them to MS's bloatware offerings on a 30G HD...
Finally, there have been much ballyhooed nonvolatile memories before that died once they hit the market. Bubble memory was supposed to replace hard drives about 20 years ago, but most slashdotters are too young to even remember it... I do like to see another technology out there, because if MRAM stumbles, now there's another chance of getting NVRAM that doesn't require major compromises.
As always, multiply the marketing department's wishes with pi. In this case, 3*3.14, it's something like 9.5 years. I'd say end of 2010 at best.
However, systems such as you talk of, don't NEED to be forcibly power-cycled. However, they are generally shut off, to avoid unnecessary power drain. But when entering a threat area, they are turned on.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Have you not upgraded to Ext3 or are you running Windows 9x?
The article wasn't any better written than the summary. It seems like this is suitable as a replacement for flash memory, not for either disk (which is huge), or for RAM (which is really fast). Of course, having a flash-like technology be cost-effective would change things; you could keep a copy of system memory as it is when it has just been booted (but before it initializes devices) there. Then you "reboot" by copying the virtual memory table from the nvram to main memory, and the system is immediately ready to initialize devices and run.
It would also be useful if programs could put some of their data in the nvram region, so (for instance), your emacs buffers don't go away when the power goes out. It would also be a good place to put write buffers, such that, as soon as the data is written to nvram, it will definitely make it into the filesystem, whether or not you lose power. This means that you can accumulate more dirty buffers safely and write them out in larger chunks, which is more efficient.
Keeping everything in nvram (if that were fast enough) may or may not be a good idea. You'd still want to reboot on occasion to refresh the system (load a new kernel, e.g.), but there's no particular reason you'd want to reboot at exactly those times when you power down and back up. Of course, you'd need everything to be hotswappable (replace the processor with programs running?) and restartable (disks have to be told to spin up, e.g.).
Rebooting is sometimes used to refresh the state of the RAN, rather than just to power down. So there will be needed two new facilities.
1) a clear function, which will set the ram to a known good value.
2) an initialize function to recover from connections that may have been left active, and timed out while the power was off. (And probably to do other recovery that I haven't thought of just yet.)
In the old core memory machines, the core was frequently cleared without turning off the computer, and then another IPL (initial program load) was done to start a program running. These features will need to be re-invented for more modern environments if ram becomes non-volitile. Of course, design could cause only some ram to be non-volitile, in which case it could be treated as an extermely fast disk (faster than the volitile ram? That sounds unlikely, but if so it could cause interesting design changes.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And if they can hack the density and cost problem, replacing disks with this technology could actually work.
To sum up: Typically "we solve a major problem" false-promise headline. Maybe they are looking for funding.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
Aha, so this is why the memory systems are funded by DARPA. Having discovered that their Windows NT controlled ships are dead in the water after a system crash, they're trying to make computers that reboot faster!
-Paul Komarek
Go back even further and you didn't even need to keep the ram powered, oh the joys of core memory (the stuff with the little ferrite donuts).
One problem with actual core memory is that reads are destructive. So immediatly after a read you need to do a write.