Slashdot Mirror


"Colossal Magnetic Effect" Could Lead To Another Breakthrough In Storage Tech

Bryant writes "Scientists with the Carnegie Institution for Science have discovered what could bring yet another massive advance in memory and storage. The discovery, a magnetoresistence literally 'up to 1000 times more powerful' than the Giant Magnetoresistence Effect discovered roughly 20 years ago, which led to one of the major breakthroughs in memory, seems to be a result of high-pressure interactions between Manganites. Manganites aren't new to this game; MRAM uses Manganite layers to achieve the Magnetic Tunnel Effect needed to keep the state of memory stable. Applying significant amounts of pressure to known tech-useful materials isn't a new trick; you might recall the recent breakthrough with Europium superconductivity thanks to similar high-pressure antics."

105 comments

  1. And if we can predict anything... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This discovery seems to still be in the very preliminary stages. It is premature to conclude that this will lead to substantial improvements. Putting things under high pressure is difficult and keeping them under high pressure is really hard (although from my minimal physics understanding it looks like this could be used to assist in low pressure situations also).

    One thing is certain. If this does lead to improvement in memory we'll have a few months of people asking whatever they could do with all that memory. And then a few years after they'll complain that it isn't enough.

    1. Re:And if we can predict anything... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      People tell me that 7 gigs right now would be overkill.

      We'll wait till Crysis 2 comes out...

      You just watch, new Ram from magnetic discoveries, DX11 release, the boom in multi-core computing...

      Even Next Gen consoles will be amazing

    2. Re:And if we can predict anything... by Gibbs-Duhem · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not new, nor truly preliminary technology; I researched this back in 2004 and there was already a huge amount in the literature. It's just an incremental improvement and uses by and large existing thin film technologies pushed to their limit.

      Most people didn't even notice the transition from regular magnetorestrictive heads to giant magnetoresistive heads, they were just incorporated naturally so that hard drive densities could further increase. This technology is the obvious and natural extension from giant magnetoresistive heads, and the increased signal to noise ratio will allow for denser drives with no doubt -- although we're already at the point where a "bit" is only made up of a few dozen magnetic domains. But in any case, this type of technology is a prerequisite for using more highly nanocrystalline magnetic materials with smaller domains...

    3. Re:And if we can predict anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even Next Gen consoles will be amazing

      The problem with consoles or even PC gaming is the fact that humans have physical limitations in hearing, sight, smell and touch. It is no good having sound systems that produce frequencies beyond the threshold of human hearing and it is rather pointless producing a display that our eyes cannot detect any improvement over a lesser detailed display. Basically that leaves smell and touch to be explored with regard to interaction, however this area is highly subjective.

      If you look at improvements in consoles and PC from the 1980's these have been significant however we are now rapidly approaching the limits of human senses and with sound we exceeded what we can possibly hear decades ago, this leaves sight and looking at what is now being produced with PC, PS3 and Xbox360 we are now approaching what human eyes are capable of resolving.

      We'll wait till Crysis 2 comes out...

      My son has Crysis on his gaming PC and he has a full 1080p (1920x1080 resolution) 24in screen and an excellent sound system. If he changes the Crysis resolution to something less then 1080p you can pick it but it but it not a huge discernible difference. Like wise if I display a game or movie that outputs 1080p to a similarly sized (say 42in) 1080p and also a 720p HDTV you will pick the difference but it is not hugely different. Of course if you increase the screen size to a 55in HDTV the difference is more pronounced. If HDTV manufactures go to higher resolutions you would find that you can have screen sizes of 100in or more but how many living rooms at the moment support this and how close do you want to be from the screen.

      I do think that the only way to keep increasing performance in games is to actually heighten human senses and this is going to be a topic that is going to be very interesting in the fairly near future.

    4. Re:And if we can predict anything... by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      The article said 230,000 times atmospheric pressure. I guess this would bring a new dimension to the term "my memory blew up" ... I imagine it would be a lot more dramatic than just letting out the smoke!

  2. Storage.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem isn't storage its speed. Really with 1TB of HD space there isn't anything you can't have a lot of. On the other hand I/O, especially magnetic I/O is the main bottleneck. Storage isn't a problem.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Storage.... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a combination of persistence, random I/O and storage actually.

      SSDs are good at the first two, but still have catching up to do on the latter (and price...), but as soon as a reasonably priced 1TB version comes out, that'll be a great boon...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Storage.... by wjh31 · · Score: 1

      its both. Servers need both speed and storage. And alot of consumers, especially gamers want both. Plenty of people can fill up a hard drive with films, photos, music etc... yet want their applications and system to be resposive. Ive hear more and more of people using an SSD for their system for performance, and keeping a 'traditional' hard drive for mass storage. Having both says to me that they are just waiting for the costs to come down such that performance and storage are available on a single drive again

    3. Re:Storage.... by castironpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem isn't storage its speed. Really with 1TB of HD space there isn't anything you can't have a lot of. On the other hand I/O, especially magnetic I/O is the main bottleneck. Storage isn't a problem.

      Are you saying that 1TB of space should be enough for anyone?

      --
      mmmm...forbidden donut
    4. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except rendering projects.

    5. Re:Storage.... by castironpigeon · · Score: 1

      Having both says to me that they are just waiting for the costs to come down such that performance and storage are available on a single drive again

      I doubt it. You can have a cheap, fast, or reliable drive or storage array. Pick two of the three qualities. As technology advances we redefine all three so that it's still just as difficult to have a cheap, fast, reliable drive. I'm sure somebody's coined a 'law' describing this.

      --
      mmmm...forbidden donut
    6. Re:Storage.... by OpenGLFan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd love it. Bring it on -- the bigger and slower, the better. Ever since big, slow backup tapes stopped being significantly larger than the drives they backed up, keeping important info safe has been a nontrivial task. If you can back up an enterprise's 20GB-a-day data generation habit with an array of slow-but-reliable 10-20TB drives, then your life gets a lot easier.

    7. Re:Storage.... by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      Simple. Just have a 1TB cache.

    8. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you saying that 1TB of space should be enough for anyone?

      No. He's saying that 1TB of RAM is almost enough to run Vista.

    9. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I heard the same said for 1GB, not 10 years ago.

    10. Re:Storage.... by Shooter28 · · Score: 1

      Cheap, fast, reliable?

      What about storage capacity?

    11. Re:Storage.... by mea37 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're thinking home computers, maybe.

      For a lot of businesses, 1TB isn't that much. We have systems with well over 1TB of data, to which over 5GB of new data are added every day, with an accelerating rate of new data coming in (as the systems model more fo the business, in more detail, etc.).

      Historically these scales have only increased over time, and nothing is evident that would show that slowing down any time soon.

      Now, do you want all that storage in one HDD? Probably not; there are pros and cons. But, there are absolutely applications where the desired amount of storage on a device exceeds what you could get today. It's not all about how many movies you can torrent.

    12. Re:Storage.... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you saying that 1TB of space should be enough for anyone?

      No, but let's be a bit realistic, here. 1 TB is enough space for some 100 hours of DVD-quality video. 1 PB is 100,000 hours of DVD video. If current trends continue, we're fast approaching the point where we really *can* store ALL movies ever produced on a single backpack HDD. We went from a GB to a TB HDD in about 10 years, so it's not unreasonable to think that we'll have 1 PB in another 10. At that time, you can record every second of your life on a single HDD, in RAW format.

      With strong lossy compression you can do it now.

      The Dollhouse isn't so horribly far away....

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    13. Re:Storage.... by slyn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a combination of persistence, random I/O and storage actually.

      SSDs are good at the first two, but still have catching up to do on the latter (and price...), but as soon as a reasonably priced 1TB version comes out, that'll be a great boon...

      Though I do agree that SSD's are definitely the next big thing when it comes to computer performance, there are a lot of things that need to happen before they become the definitive standard in storage. As you mention, the price/GB ratio needs to come down, but in addition to that:

      - SATA 3 needs to come out. Though most SSD's don't exceed SATA 2 bus speeds, higher end SSD's like the OCZ Vertex or Intels X-25m hit 250MB/s sustained speeds. ONFi (open nand flash alliance? something like that) recently announced what is essentially the NAND 2.0 standard which doubles the speed of NAND modules, meaning next generation SSD's could easily hit sustained speeds of 500MB/s without any special tricks like internal raid. SSD's are already faster, but for better futureproof-ness and the ability to get the full potential out of SSD's, bus speeds need to increase quite a bit.

      - TRIM needs to get at more OS's and SSD's support. SSD's write performance degrades with use due to a combination of the mechanics of NAND flash itself and common wear leveling algorithms. Essentially what happens is that when reading the flash blocks, all the SSD has to do is pass over and read the data. When writing though, if the block was previously written to the SSD has to erase the entire block clean and *then* write it. This is further exacerbated on MLC SSD's, where the individual transistors each store 2 bits, which on average doubles the write time with the benefit of double the space for the same price (instead of 0 or 1 like a SLC SSD, each one stores either 00, 01, 10, or 11). TRIM effectively eliminates a step from the write process on a previously used SSD by erasing blocks marked as free by the OS during an idle period, which means that write speeds degrade less over time.

      - Manufacturing processes need to mature, as well as firmwares, wear-leveling algorithms, and filesystems. Unlike platter hard drives SSD's don't have decades of optimization and experience, which means higher than acceptable failure rates, extra consumer knowledge required to properly install and maintain, OS tweaks needed to fully exploit the current capabilities of SSD's, and certain technologies just not being available yet (a recent ext4 v btrfs SSD comparison on phoronix showed that btrfs was much much slower than ext4 despite the potential for btrfs to be better optimized for SSD's).

      My personal belief is that by the time SSD's are halfway done with all of the above (including price/GB), they will overtake traditional HDD's in the market. The advantages of SSD's are already here and apparent, they are just expensive and a relatively young technology with a few growing pains. By the time the growing pains are half resolved SSD's will be much superior in just about every way possible, and then they will really really take off.

    14. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that's a Gates quote, but I work for a data management company that specializes in oil seismic data. I'm using 13TB of data and I'm only 1/8th the way through the project.

    15. Re:Storage.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I do IT work for a (small) Geoscience company. Currently they have projects taking up about 10TB worth of data on-line, and growing exponentially. Often, new SEGY data comes in the form of a 500GB to 1TB portable drives (near capacity) as keeping up with tape technologies no longer makes much sense. It's as though the guys on the boat says "We have this much storage? No problem, let's dial up the data resolution boys".

      God damn, the company I work for can hardly scope out enough storage long term to keep them afloat! I'm sure many in IT are facing the same problem with the Geoscience industry.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:Storage.... by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Are you saying that 1TB of space should be enough for anyone?

      No, but let's be a bit realistic, here. 1 TB is enough space for some 100 hours of DVD-quality video. 1 PB is 100,000 hours of DVD video. If current trends continue, we're fast approaching the point where we really *can* store ALL movies ever produced on a single backpack HDD. "

      You already can store every movie in the world as long as you don't mind the quality. We still can't store all movies in the world in HD-quality. If we offer a huge storage place people will come up with ways to fill it. That's always been the case and it probably will always be the case.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    17. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't storage its speed. Really with 1TB of HD space there isn't anything you can't have a lot of. On the other hand I/O, especially magnetic I/O is the main bottleneck. Storage isn't a problem.

      So drop some SSDs in front to act as read (MLC) and write (SLC) caches:

      http://blogs.sun.com/studler/entry/zfs_and_the_hybrid_storage
      http://mags.acm.org/communications/200807/?pg=49

      Sun calls this "hybrid storage".

    18. Re:Storage.... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but let's be a bit realistic, here. 1 TB is enough space for some 100 hours of DVD-quality video. 1 PB is 100,000 hours of DVD video.

      Sure -- of DVD-quality video. Of course, significantly less of HD video, and even less of, say, Ultra HD with 22.2 channel sound.

      We went from a GB to a TB HDD in about 10 years, so it's not unreasonable to think that we'll have 1 PB in another 10.

      Sure, if you assume that the growth rate is exponential without bound. OTOH, technologies of all types often flatten out as they mature, and a logistic growth pattern (which looks exponential in its early phase) is perhaps more reasonable of a long-term expectation.

      At that time, you can record every second of your life on a single HDD, in RAW format.

      Assuming that you are doing uncompressed, 8 bit/channel RGB images at a measly 640x480 resolution, 1 image per second, 1 PB will only get you less than 39 years of images, so your statement is only true with extremely low resolution images, or short lives.

    19. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have no idea. Two jobs ago (and 3 years ago), the commercial systems I was working on at a Geophysics place had about 1.3 Petabytes of online, actively accessed hard drive storage.

    20. Re:Storage.... by acheron12 · · Score: 1

      Well spluh. We'll need more space for those 3D virtual reality movies where you can view the battle from behind the second soldier on the left's shoulder, while noting that he needs to wash his shirt more often.

      --
      there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
    21. Re:Storage.... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      growing exponentially

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    22. Re:Storage.... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Really with 1TB of HD space there isn't anything you can't have a lot of.

      Sure there is.

      HDTV takes about 8GBytes/hour. That's just ~120 hours on a a terabyte HDD, or perhaps a month of TV viewing. Now, you're not going to want to save EVERYTHING you view, but you'll probably fill-up a second terabyte drive within a year. Quicker if you're saving blu-ray movies as well.

      So, while it isn't as big of a constraint as it once was, we could still use more space...

      On the other hand I/O, especially magnetic I/O is the main bottleneck.

      So RAID-0 your drives... Instantly double the speed. And if you really can't find a way to use the space, buy a pair of 500GB drives instead of 1x 1TB drive. With the popularity of SATA RAID controllers, most systems can easily enough have 4 HD drives in a RAID set. Are you suggesting that 4x the transfer speed of the best 10kRPM drives still isn't fast enough for you?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Storage.... by youn · · Score: 1

      I heard something about 640k being more than enough not much longer than that... of course, that was back in the days when we had manic miner on the zx spectrum... :) loved that game

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    24. Re:Storage.... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Seriously, have you even started to wonder why there are so many IMAX 3D releases these days? You wanna guess how much space one of those takes up on a hard drive?

    25. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      700 MB compressed

    26. Re:Storage.... by Artemis3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think by then MRAM will be ready to take over all memory needs and possibly mass storage needs.

      MRAM is: Fast like SRAM, less power hungry than DRAM (no refresh!), and keeps its state like flash, but without degrading when written to... Its obvious this will make all other types obsolete.

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    27. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was true, up until fairly recently. I survived quite happily on 1GB of RAM from 2001 all the way through to about a year ago, when I scored a couple of free sticks and bumped it up to 2GB. It's only in the last couple of years that your average home user has had any use for more than a gig.

    28. Re:Storage.... by donaldm · · Score: 1

      So RAID-0 your drives... Instantly double the speed. And if you really can't find a way to use the space, buy a pair of 500GB drives instead of 1x 1TB drive. With the popularity of SATA RAID controllers, most systems can easily enough have 4 HD drives in a RAID set. Are you suggesting that 4x the transfer speed of the best 10kRPM drives still isn't fast enough for you?

      RAID-0 is a stripe which has no redundancy so loose a drive and you loose all your data. RAID-5 is a safer solution although effectively you cannot use one disk so a four disk RAID-5 has an effective data size of three disks. RAID-5 does not have a good write performance compared to RAID-0 but that it the price you need to pay for redundancy. Of course you could use another RAID-0 array as your backup. You have considered backup haven't you?

      Basically the greater the data the more valuable it becomes and therefore the greater the need to back it up. You also have to consider the capacity of the data backbone, after all it is pointless if your array can handle 1GB/sec when your cables/fibre can only handle 100MB/sec. In a commercial environment it is amazing that companies buy high performing storage arrays and don't invest in increased network (include SAN as well) bandwidths and speeds then complain of performance bottle necks. What is even worse is investing in high performance backup solutions and not buffering the backup data for streaming so you have backups which go over 24 hours when you could put in a virtual storage library which in turn spools off to tape that can reduce your backups to a few hours. It must be noted that what I have just touched on are enterprise solutions which are way beyond the purchase of home systems.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    29. Re:Storage.... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      You already can store every movie in the world as long as you don't mind the quality.

      and the MPAA lawsuits...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    30. Re:Storage.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I work for a company that routinely processes videos of several hours runtime, extracts still images from them etc. Let me tell you that 1 TiB of disk space isn't really that much.

      But on top of that, as you correctly point out, it becomes even worse if you start putting houndreds of thousands jpegs on these things and have to find a program that reliably copies and checks them. Hint: Don't try windows explorer. Robocopy works fine as does BeyondCompare. Most others fail somewhere near 150.000 files, which usually happens after several hours into the process and leaves you with an inconsistent state which means you might have to start all over again.

    31. Re:Storage.... by metaforest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the current market focused on exploiting economies of scale to produce the current generation of high density FLASH in 65nm processes. So far this has been VERY lucrative for the companies that bet the farm on building dedicated 65nm fabs for FLASH.

      IMO: MRAM has unfortunately come a little late to the party. In it's current role it is kind of the Beta Max of the solid-state storage device market.

      Currently only Freescale produces MRAM in any quantity, and they currently only produce 4Mbit parts on a couple of 180nm fabs.

      I don't think there is any question that MRAM has the potential to meet or exceed FLASH on the density/price curve. What might keep it out of the high-density market is one of it's great inherent strengths; it doesn't wear out. Who wants to sell storage modules that don't EOL themselves? Try and sell that to your pointy-haired boss' pointy-haired boss...
      ----
      General Electric wasn't interested in mass manufactured light bulbs until Edison figured out how to get them to FAIL reliably.

      For them that doesn't know: Edison's original design was a carbon impregnated cotton filament, in as near a total vacuum as could be produced in those days. It didn't suffer from filament migration, and other effects that cause modern bulbs to fail. If the original design had been refined as it was, General Electric could have saturated the market for light bulbs in a relatively short time, and been driven out of the market due to the Edison bulb having no predictable EOL.

    32. Re:Storage.... by bn-7bc · · Score: 0

      Hmm can you please post a link to a 1TB 2.5in HDD tha toes not cost an arm an a leg? I know that large cheap HDDs exsist but not for laptops
       

    33. Re:Storage.... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      For them that doesn't know: Edison's original design was a carbon impregnated cotton filament, in as near a total vacuum as could be produced in those days. It didn't suffer from filament migration, and other effects that cause modern bulbs to fail. If the original design had been refined as it was, General Electric could have saturated the market for light bulbs in a relatively short time, and been driven out of the market due to the Edison bulb having no predictable EOL.

      Conspiracy theory. The problem with 'last forever' incandescent bulbs is that they're horrible at efficiency. 'Energy Miser' bulbs tend to last a bit shorter than standard bulbs because their filament's are thinner.

      At around $1 for 4, the cost of the bulb is overwhelmed by the cost of the electricity.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    34. Re:Storage.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      The problem with 'last forever' incandescent bulbs is that they're horrible at efficiency. 'Energy Miser' bulbs tend to last a bit shorter than standard bulbs because their filament's are thinner.

      This wasn't true in the early part of the light-bulb story.
      Efficiency was not a big consideration back then. Marketability WAS. Early bulbs cost considerably more than the electricity they consumed.

      It took 30 years before tungsten was used in bulb filaments.

      It wasn't until 1910 that tungsten filaments were commercially viable due to a process invented by W.D. Coolidge.

      It took least another 50 years before we got to the "energy miser" bulb.

    35. Re:Storage.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      We went from a GB to a TB HDD in about 10 years, so it's not unreasonable to think that we'll have 1 PB in another 10.

      I wouldn't count on it. We've only gone from 1TB to 2TB in the past 2 1/2 years. Things are definently slowing down in the harddrive industry.

    36. Re:Storage.... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      RAID-0 is a stripe which has no redundancy

      The question was performance, not redundancy.

      so loose a drive and you loose all your data.

      I would never set loose a drive, or my data. I keep it safely locked up inside the case...

      Of course you could use another RAID-0 array as your backup.

      No kidding. If you were sane, however, you would probably just use a single drive, 4X as large as the drives in your RAID-0 array, and use RSync to frequently copy the changes over.

      Basically the greater the data the more valuable it becomes

      Not at all. HDTV shows are no more valuable than SD TV shows. Lossless music is no more valuable than MP3s.

      It must be noted that what I have just touched on are enterprise solutions which are way beyond the purchase of home systems.

      Yes, it's called ranting... You're doing it well.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:Storage.... by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      But 1 or 2TB per drive will get you quite a data-density.
      You can fit 448TB of storage in a single 48U rack using 2TB-drives. =)

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  3. so we just need 2 diamonds per bit by wjh31 · · Score: 1

    well, atleast it will be cheaper than SSS's

    1. Re:so we just need 2 diamonds per bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSS's eh?
      Super Solid Snakes?
      Is that going to be the next enemy in MGS5?

    2. Re:so we just need 2 diamonds per bit by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      well, atleast it will be cheaper than SSS's

      Yup, the thermal shield on Super-Sonic Sandwiches is made out of pure Unobtainium.
      We really should start work on a replacement for that.

  4. Article text in case of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Argonne, ILâ"Millions of people today carry around pocket-sized music players capable of holding thousands of songs, thanks to the discovery 20 years ago of a phenomenon known as the âoegiant magnetoresistance effect,â which made it possible to pack more data onto smaller and smaller hard drives. Now scientists are on the trail of another phenomenon, called the âoecolossal magnetoresistance effectâ (CMR) which is up to a thousand times more powerful and could trigger another revolution in computing technology. Understanding, and ultimately controlling, this effect and the intricate coupling between electrical conductivity and magnetism in these materials remains a challenge, however, because of competing interactions in manganites, the materials in which CMR was discovered. In the June 12, 2009, issue of the journal Physical Review Letters, a team of researchers report new progress in using high pressure techniques to unravel the subtleties of this coupling.

    To study the magnetic properties of manganites, a form of manganese oxide, the research team, led by Yang Ding of the Carnegie Institutionâ(TM)s High Pressure Synergetic Center (HPSync), applied techniques called x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) and angular-dispersive diffraction at the Advanced Photon Source (APS) of Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. High pressure XMCD is a newly developed technique that uses high-brilliance circularly polarized x-rays to probe the magnetic state of a material under pressures of many hundreds of thousands of atmospheres inside a diamond anvil cell.

    The discovery of CMR in manganite compounds has already made manganites invaluable components in technological applications. An example is magnetic tunneling junctions in soon-to-be marketed magnetic random access memory (MRAM), where the tunneling of electrical current between two thin layers of manganite material separated by an electrical insulator depends on the relative orientation of magnetization in the manganite layers. Unlike conventional RAM, MRAM could yield instant-on computers. However, no current theories can fully explain the rich physics, including CMR effects, seen in manganites.

    âoeThe challenge is that there are competing interactions in manganites among the electrons that determine magnetic properties,â said Ding. âoeAnd the properties are also affected by external stimuli, such as, temperature, pressure, magnetic field, and chemical doping.â

    âoePressure has a unique ability to tune the electron interactions in a clean and theoretically transparent manner,â he added. âoeIt is a direct and effective means for manipulating the behavior of electrons and could provide valuable information on the magnetic and electronic properties of manganite systems. But of all the effects, pressure effects have been the least explored.â

    The researchers found that when a manganite was subjected to conditions above 230,000 times atmospheric pressure it underwent a transition in which its magnetic ordering changed from a ferromagnetic type (electron spins aligned) to an antiferromagnetic type (electron spins opposed). This transition was accompanied by a non-uniform structural distortion called the Jahn-Teller effect.

    âoeIt is quite interesting to observe that uniform compression leads to a non-uniform structural change in a manganite, which was not predicted by theory,â said Ding, âoeWorking with Michel van Veenendaalâ(TM)s theoretical group at APS, we found that the predominant effect of pressure on this material is to increase the strength of an interaction known as superexchange relative to another known as the double exchange interaction. A consequence of this is that the overall ferromagnetic interactions in the system occur in a plane (two dimensions) rather than in three dimensions, which produces a non-uniform redistribution of electrons. This leads to the structural distortion.â

    Another intriguing response of manganite to high p

  5. Massless advance in memory and storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In the future, instead of using disk compression, you can get your fat momma to sit on your computer.

    1. Re:Massless advance in memory and storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waddya mean "Troll"? That's funny as a fuck! I miss fat momma..

      *Yo momma so fat even Bill Gates couldn't pay for her liposuction!* See? Bill Gates! On Topic! Fuck y'all! Everything technical is Bill Gates. And the motherfucker's always on the front page here..

    2. Re:Massless advance in memory and storage by JoCat · · Score: 1

      Ah, still using FAT32?

  6. Speed and latency matters by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think I'd be complaining much about huge amounts of cheap storage.

    However I'd complain about low bandwidth and high latency.

    Imagine if you have 100TB drives but they only do sequential transfers at 200MB/sec and are still stuck at about 10milliseconds access time (7200rpm).

    What that means: it'll take 6 days to transfer 100TB at 200MB/sec, and random transfer speeds will be about as crap as now (1-2MB/sec).

    --
    1. Re:Speed and latency matters by frieko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a bit conservative. 100 times more density means 10 times more data per rotation. So more like 1GB/sec. Besides, who cares how long your site backup takes or how long it takes to fill up your DVR? That's where spinning disks are going. For random access there's SSD's and then probably MRAM.

      On an unrelated note, did it take anybody else 5 tries to not read TFA as "High pressure XKCD is a newly developed technique..."

    2. Re:Speed and latency matters by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      So, we'd be where we're at right now, just with 100x the storage? That wouldn't be too bad in my book.

    3. Re:Speed and latency matters by xOneca · · Score: 1

      I think by then i-RAM will have more capacity.

    4. Re:Speed and latency matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That would be great until the power went out for 8 hours and your on-board battery went dead along with all of your data.

    5. Re:Speed and latency matters by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine if you have 100TB drives but they only do sequential transfers at 200MB/sec and are still stuck at about 10milliseconds access time (7200rpm).

      Fine with me. rsync rocks. Tape drives, and particularly optical drives (CDs/DVDs/MOs), have FAR WORSE performance characteristics, and they all refuse to die.

      Maybe we'll just see Flash take the place of smaller HDDs, and large slow HDDs take the place of tapes and most uses of optical media.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Speed and latency matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an unrelated note, did it take anybody else 5 tries to not read TFA as "High pressure XKCD is a newly developed technique..."

      Absolutely not. I would never stoop so low so as to read TFA.

    7. Re:Speed and latency matters by donaldm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Besides, who cares how long your site backup takes or how long it takes to fill up your DVR? That's where spinning disks are going.

      Any business that want to remain in business cares significantly about backup times. Basically you want to backup as quickly as possible (ie. not during business hours) and if required recover just as quickly. Even with disk to disk backups (great and relatively cheap for home use) you are always going to have a latency problem. Unfortunately the more elaborate a backup and recovery strategy is the more expensive it becomes.

      As for a DVR this is normally up to the household although it can be quite funny or stressful when you want backup up you favourite program and you have no more space on the disk. Mass panic to clean up normally happens. Anyone in the IT industry has seen this on a regular basis.

      It must be remembered that backups are not about just recovering data to existing systems if required it is about recovering from disasters as well. It is quite scary that many companies have a half hearted approach to backup and recovery and many don't even go through the exercise of testing a disaster recovery scenario since they think it is going to be disruptive or is going to cost too much. Of course these companies are basically a disaster waiting to happen however it is very difficult for IT to explain to management that they need to test their disaster recovery processes when management can't understand that their own PC's need backing up (at least their user data) as well.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    8. Re:Speed and latency matters by donaldm · · Score: 1

      So, we'd be where we're at right now, just with 100x the storage? That wouldn't be too bad in my book.

      And a 100 times the backup requirement.. I would like to see the IT manager explain this to Management..

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    9. Re:Speed and latency matters by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah you're probably going to be right since:

      Modern 1TB drive = 120MB/sec
      Old 10GB drive= 10MB/sec

      But wise people care how long the site backups take. Because if the site _restore_ takes as long it's a problem. So that probably means moving to a "hot standby" sort of backup- which won't be as cheap since you'd need extra stuff - running live off your only backup system is not a good idea.

      As for saying "for random access" there's SSDs, does that mean more of us will be using SSDs in the future, and fewer of us using 100TB drives? Or are Seagate and friends going to embed small flash buffers in their drives?

      The buffers won't help for sustained random writes, but one would hope most random writes are bursts.

      BTW many current Flash SSDs are slower for random writes. While Intel's are at about 23MB/sec, the rest can be amazingly bad - many even worse than "spinning disc drives"!

      See: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531

      Look for: "4KB Random Write Speed"

      --
    10. Re:Speed and latency matters by frieko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder... what if you had a radial strip of GMR heads instead of a single read head? Thermal expansion means you'd still need a "fine tune" coil. It would be like putting an inch ruler next to a centimeter ruler. Only a handful of lines mate up, but give it a tiny bump and you get a whole new set of mates. Splatter large files across the disk. They would read in as a jumble but you could reassemble in cache. Probably crazy but I swear it works great in my head ;)

    11. Re:Speed and latency matters by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

      Could be more expensive than it's worth for the drive maker to build. They'd rather sell more drives for RAID10. Since the exact same drives could be sold to those who don't want the extra performance. Thus they get economies of scale.

      Whereas it seems (even from the responses here) that most people are quite happy with the current drive sequential speeds, so they wouldn't pay extra for a larger multihead.

      Similar reasons why multiple independent heads haven't taken off:

      http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/op/actMultiple-c.html

      --
    12. Re:Speed and latency matters by frieko · · Score: 1

      Well, the original premise was that one head couldn't read a 100TB drive in a reasonable amount of time. I agree that it doesn't make sense for current drives.

    13. Re:Speed and latency matters by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I think what will happen is people who need speed will buy multiple 100TB drives and use only the first few TB of those drives (which normally is the fastest). The track to track seek will be faster too.

      It's a waste, but if they're still cheap...

      --
  7. In Plain English... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    ...someone been watching too much Star Trek.

  8. For shame by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    seems to be a result of high-pressure interactions between Manganites. Manganites aren't new to this game

    For shame /. No comments or jokes on the obvious? Its right there for the taking.

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
    1. Re:For shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo... are you suggesting applying the pressure with giant hyperdimensional hammers from hammerspace?

  9. New Tech by Evildonald · · Score: 2, Funny

    At last! I hope my magnetic personality won't wipe this new technology as well.

  10. It is great but ... by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Should that Giant Magnetoresistive? Someone else seems to so because the article is tagged "typoinsummary". Google and I haven't heard much about Great Magnetoresistive effect in the past, so unless it's some obscure term...

    But hey, it's not my area of expertise and I certainly agree that with the sentiment that this magnetoresistive stuff is rather great!

    1. Re:It is great but ... by Lord+Accium · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone else seems to so because

      You accidentally the whole verb !

  11. One wonders what they'll call the next discovery? by cutecub · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about the "Super-Hyper-Colossal-Magnetoresistence Effect?"

    At some point, you run out of superlatives and need to go Exponential:

    Magneto X 10^Super-Hyper-Colossal

    -S

  12. Re:Magnetic Tunnel Effect by Tdawgless · · Score: 1, Informative

    Your mother's tongue ring wasn't made of ferrous materials.

  13. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't there be a "Mega" in there somewhere?

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  14. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Super-Hyper-Colossal-Magnetoresistence-Effect-Mega-Zord! What the Power Rangers use to defeat the evil forces of insufficient memory.

  15. Those antics by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    you might recall the recent breakthrough with Europium superconductivity thanks to similar high-pressure antics.

    Well who wouldn't? *shakes head*

    Gosh darn newfangled Europium superconductivity breakthroughs that come out of high-pressure antics. Kids these days.

    1. Re:Those antics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I do. News for nerds, remember?

  16. This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Colossal magnetoresistance in manganites are discovered some 15+ years ago.
    And this area has been very hot in recently years with tons of papers coming out every month. In fact I did my own masters thesis on this particular topic.
    You guys should really check this out, it is so true...

  17. X-Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Magneto X 10^Super-Hyper-Colossal

    But how do you get Magneto & Professor X to work together to produce it? That's the hard part...

  18. This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Colossal magnetoresistance in manganites are discovered some 15+ years ago.
    And this field is so hot in recently years that tons of papers come out every month. In fact I did my masters thesis just on this particular topic.
    You guys should check this out, it is so true.

  19. Actual application in spinning storage? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

    I suspect never. Very high pressures + spinning media doesn't work particularly well. Not to say this investigation will not lead to some interesting condensed matter physics, which in turn could lead to actual discoveries that make it to market.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    1. Re:Actual application in spinning storage? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Very high pressures + spinning media doesn't work particularly well.

      There may be other ways to create the effect. That's the point.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  20. Not that new by booch · · Score: 4, Informative

    When I did a presentation on hard drives 3 years ago, I had already read some things saying that the Colossal Magnetorsestive Effect was the next step in read-write head technology. The Wikipedia page says the effect was discovered in 1993. This new discovery might make it more feasible, but hard drive technology developers already knew that CMR would be a part of the technology going forward.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    1. Re:Not that new by Gibbs-Duhem · · Score: 3, Informative

      Although to be fair, this seems to be describing Tunneling Magnetoresistance (actually the next incremental step in hard drive read heads), not the Colossal Magnetoresistive Effect, which only works in very special situations.

  21. Did anyone else read the first few words and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... think "oh no, here is another 2012 crackpot article again"?

    I was very pleased that it was not another 2012 crackpot article, i think i might have exploded into a colossal magnetic effect.

  22. Re:Magnetic Tunnel Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man, I understand the concept of trolling, but really... some humans are just fucking defective, even by human standards...

  23. The old saying by mac1235 · · Score: 1

    Don't underestimate the bandwidth of station wagon full of magnetic tapes, could be updated: Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a briefcase full of Colossal(Tm) hard disks? Don't underestimate the size of my portable drive, I've got every song that made it into the charts in every country on this Colossal(Tm) thing. Jenna Jameson 2010, 200Mb/sec required for ColossalVision(Tm)

  24. Irony much? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    You guys should check this out, it is so true.

    Yes. And that is the case ALL the time. We need special hats or something to protect us.

    -FL

  25. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Funny

    >>How about the "Super-Hyper-Colossal-Magnetoresistence Effect?"

    Yeah, they were really short sided when they skipped directly from "giant" to "colossal". As all nerds know, the progression goes:
    Fine -> Diminutive -> Tiny -> Small -> Medium -> Large -> Huge -> Gargantuan -> Colossal.

    Since giants are Huge, the next step up in technology would be Gargantuan.

    (And after Colossal comes Colossal+, of course.)

  26. LMR Effect by HiggsBison · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about the "Super-Hyper-Colossal-Magnetoresistence Effect?"

    I'm waiting for the Ludicrous Magnetoresistence Effect.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  27. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is going on here?

  28. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

    Google-resistive.

    Much like a lot of Slashdotters.

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. "Up to" by algae · · Score: 1

    2x more powerful, is included in the set of "up to" 1000x more powerful.

    --
    Causation can cause correlation
  32. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now I know I'm getting old...power rangers references on slashdot, modded up.

    huh.

  33. Re:bike, nigga stole my bike! by Rip+Dick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    NOW how am I to train for my upcoming bout against PISTON HONDA?!?!?!?!

  34. Re:One wonders what they'll call the next discover by metaforest · · Score: 1

    It's an unfortunate fact that the naming convention included an superlative... now they have to keep upping the ante each time a new property of magnetoresistance is discovered.

  35. Re:c u on the island... by cheftw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Who modded that offtopic?

    Just because Lost is shit is no reason to downmod the poor souls who still watch it.

    --
    Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
  36. What's next? by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    Giant resistance? Colossal effect?

    We're about two adjectives away from Ginormous.

  37. Re: by PCSmith · · Score: 1

    All your Manganites are belong to us!