Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotube Memory Finally Beats Flash For Speed

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the more-nano-for-your-nano dept.

holy_calamity writes "Although flash memory that stores each bit on a single nanotube has been tinkered with in the lab for years, it has always been much slower than the devices in use today. A Finnish team has now cracked that, demonstrating single bits of nanotube memory that can be written in just 100 nanoseconds. Existing flash memory takes tens of microseconds."

23 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. And what exactly by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Funny

    what will we do when these "tubes" become clogged, and we can't get our email?

    --
    meh
    1. Re:And what exactly by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Call Joe the Nanoplumber?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:And what exactly by Hordeking · · Score: 2, Funny

      what will we do when these "tubes" become clogged, and we can't get our internets?

      Fixed it for you, Convict Stevens.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    3. Re:And what exactly by GaryOlson · · Score: 2, Funny

      You place some absorbent material over the end of the tubes and apply some extremely high voltage thru the third gate.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  2. Wow, that's pretty cool by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Call me back when it's available at Costco for 100$ per Terabyte.

    1. Re:Wow, that's pretty cool by clonan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck call me when a product is availible....at ANY price

    2. Re:Wow, that's pretty cool by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heck call me when a product is availible....at ANY price

      Sure. You can order it now for the low low price of $3 billion. Shipping time is estimated at 10 years and 7 days with free standard shipping, or 10 years and 3 days with Express Shipping for $15 extra.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Wow, that's pretty cool by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      I RTFA yesterday, it will be a while. Right now they only have a one bit memory, and TFA says a lot more work will have to be done before they can get millions or billions of them on a chip, let alone mass produce the thing.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  3. PETA won't like this at all.... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can already see the craigslist ads..."Wanted: Computer geek to come snake out my RAM."

    1. Re:PETA won't like this at all.... by Daswolfen · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what she said!

      --
      Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
  4. That should... by imamac · · Score: 4, Funny

    That should be faster than anybody would ever need...

  5. Re:speed by Who+Is+The+Drizzle · · Score: 2, Informative

    Existing flash memory takes tens of microseconds.

  6. Low OPs lifetime by NuclearRampage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The device managed to withstand 18,000 operations, which is a reasonable lifetime for a memory device, she adds."
    Is that good for experimental chips or do I not understand how such a low number is reasonable?

    1. Re:Low OPs lifetime by marcansoft · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your average Flash chip does 100k erase/write cycles. 18k is certainly reasonable for new tech, which will certainly improve over time. The number refers to the number of operations per erasable block (or it will in the future), so in practice you get a much larger number of total I/O operations on the entire chip, given a reasonable wear leveling algorithm.

    2. Re:Low OPs lifetime by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's say they make this into a thumb drive. Now, let's say that you read/write the entire drive twice a day. That's four operations. 18,000/4/365 gives you twelve years of this. Even if you are filling and then erasing the drive ten times every day it is still two and a half years of use. Less than you can do with current flash memory, but fine as a proof-of-concept.

  7. Re:nano internet? by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, it would be 10^-9 LoCs. You're thinking of deci-internets.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  8. Well, which Flash are we talking about here? by JoshDM · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jay Garrick isn't as fast as Wally West or Barry Allen...

  9. Regressing by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Funny

    ENIAC was orders of magnitude faster. These guys do 100 nanoseconds/nanotube -> 100 seconds/tube!

  10. Nantero... by katz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What ever happened to Nantero? Weren't working on this a few years ago?

  11. Not there yet... by hurfy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much latency does that algorithm add? They are only testing one bit. Won't a controller and the wear-reducing slow it down a fair amount?

    Still a ways to go:
    "The next challenge is to join an array together into a working memory chip, as the team has so far only tested single carbon nanotube elements. And although they have only proved capable of "remembering" data for several days after the power is cut, the team are confident this can be extended."

    Several days is a pretty short life for SSD...and longer than i want my RAM to last ;)

  12. Re:speed by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where are all the fuckers who bitched about me when I said most people can't understand their beloved SI units for shit (let alone read in this case)?

  13. Luxury! by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    100s of nanoseconds? Luxury! When I were young you had to store your data as sound pulses in a tube full o' mercury. You had to wait 100s of milliseconds for the pulse to reach the other end. Tell that to kids nowadays, they won't believe you.

  14. Re:speed by bytta · · Score: 2, Funny

    There is no SI unit for shit, you insensitive clod!