Slashdot Mirror
How To Use a Terabyte of RAM
Spuddly writes with links to Daniel Philips and his work on the Ramback patch, and an analysis of it by Jonathan Corbet up on LWN. The experimental new design for Linux's virtual memory system would turn a large amount of system RAM into a fast RAM disk with automatic sync to magnetic media. We haven't yet reached a point where systems, even high-end boxes, come with a terabyte of installed memory, but perhaps it's not too soon to start thinking about how to handle that much memory.
Finally, I'll have enough space to run Firefox, OpenOffice, and Eclipse *all at the same time*! As long as I don't leave Firefox running too long.
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
Given that the core components of an OS are only a few GB, even 8GB systems might be able to do this, today.
GPL Deconstructed
For those of you who don't have Adblock: Printerfriendly Version
I would think that, since we aren't even close to having boxes with more memory than we actively use, and RAM isn't growing any faster than we are using it up, that using it as a "disk" is even further off than the article would seem to imply.
Whale
One Terabyte ought to be enough for anybody.
See also, Windows 7 minimum requirements.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
I have 8 GB of RAM and rarely use more than four of it unless I'm playing a 64-bit game which eats it up (Crysis). Yes, I am running both 64-bit Linux and Windows.
One time, I opened up more than a thousand tabs in Firefox just because I could.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The System Tray would end up filling most of my dual monitors with all the crap Microsoft will inevitably find "necessary" to run the OS, leaving me with a small, 640x480 patch and approximately 640k for applications.
You wrote: "We haven't yet reached a point where systems, even high-end boxes, come with a terabyte of installed memory" - this is not true. Sun's E25k can go over 1TB of memory.....
char *ptr=malloc(1099511627776);
memset(ptr,1,1099511627776);
Well I can do cock push-ups.
If you are planning on having a few minutes' worth of UPS backup then why would you need to write to the hard drive continuously? Keep the hard drive spun down (saving power). If the system is being shut down, or AC power fails, then spin up the drive and make a backup of your ramdisk, thus being ready to restore when the power comes back up.
Next step beyond that: stop using a filesystem at runtime. Just assume your data can all fit in memory (why not, if you have a terabyte of it?) This simplifies the code and prevents a lot of duplication (why copy from RAM to RAM, just to make the distinction that one part of RAM is a filesystem and another part is the working copy?) But you will need a simple way to serialize the data to disk in case of power-down, and a simple way to restore it. This does not need to be a multi-threaded, online operation: when the system is going down you can cease all operations and just concentrate on doing the archival.
This assumption changes software design pretty fundamentally. Relational databases for example have historically been all about leaving the data on the disk and yet still fetching query results efficiently, with as little RAM as necessary.
Next step beyond that: system RAM will become non-volatile, and the disk can go away. The serialization code is now used only for making backups across the network.
Now think about how that could obsolete the old Unix paradigm that everything is a file.
How it seems to work:
Actual "ramdisk" -- that is, like /dev/rd -- that is, appears as a block device. You can run whatever filesystem you want on it, but it's still serializing and writing out to... well, RAM, in this case. No sane way for the kernel to free space on that "disk" that's not actually used.
How I wish it worked:
No Linux that I know of has used an actual ramdisk in forever. Instead, we use tmpfs -- a filesystem which actually grows or shrinks to our needs, up to an optional configurable maximum size. It'll use swap if available/needed. It's basically a RAM filesystem, instead of a RAM disk.
Even initrds are dead now -- we use initramfs. Basically, instead of the kernel booting and reading a ramdisk image directly to /dev/rd0, it instead boots and unpacks a cpio archive (like a tarball, but different/better/worse) into a tmpfs filesystem, and uses that.
So, how I would like this to work is, use a tmpfs filesystem -- as I suspect it will be faster, and in any case simpler, than a ramdisk -- and back it to a real filesystem on-disk. The only challenge here is that it's not as deterministic -- it would be more like a cp than a dd.
An even better (crazier) idea:
Use a filesystem like XFS or Reiser4 -- something which delays allocation until a flush. In either case, it would take a bit of tweaking -- you want to make sure no writes, or fsyncs, block while writing to disk, so long as the power is on -- but you'll hopefully already be caching an obscene amount anyway, so reads will be fast.
In this case, forcing everything out to disk could be as simple as "mount / -o remount,sync" -- or something similar -- forcing an immediate sync, and all future writes to be synchronous.
Conclusion:
Either of the two ideas I suggested should work, and could perform better than a traditional ramdisk. If it is, in fact, a simple disk-backed ramdisk (not ram filesystem), then it's both not as flexible (what if your app suddenly wants 50 gigs of RAM in application space?) and a bit of a hack -- probably a hack around traditional disk-backed filesystems not being able to take advantage of so much RAM by themselves.
In fact, glancing back at TFA, it seems there are some inherent reliability concerns, too:
Now, true, this should never happen, but in the event it does, the inherent problem here is that the ramdisk doesn't know anything about the filesystem, and so it doesn't know in what order it should be writing stuff to disk. Ext3 journaling makes NO sense for a ramdisk when the ramdisk itself knows nothing about the journal -- the journal is just going to slow down the RAM-based operation. Compare this to a sync call to XFS -- individual files might be corrupted, but all the writes will be journaled in some way, so at least the filesystem structure will be intact.
This gets even better with something like Reiser4's (vaporware) transaction API. If the application can define a transaction at the filesystem level, then this consistent-dump-to-disk will happen at the application level, too. Which means that while it would certainly suck to have a UPS fail, it wouldn't be much worse than the same happening to a non-ramdisk device, at least as far as consistency goes. (Some data will be lost, no way around that, but at least this way, some data will be fine.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well, closer to 1.2 TB. 40 systems with 32Gb each. Want to know what it's used for? Disk cache... It's virtually all I/O buffer.
All RAM is used as cache anyway. When an application allocates some RAM, it's in lieu of directly manipulating the permanent (disk) storage because it's horribly horribly slow. That's really an operating system failure. Network file systems, disk, RAM should all be completely transparent, the OS should abstract all that away and allow application programmers to handle it simply as storage.
Deleted