Slashdot Mirror


Revisiting the Five-Minute Rule

In 1987, a study published by Jim Gray and Gianfranco Putzolu evaluated the trade-offs between holding data in memory and storing it on a disk. Known widely as the "five-minute rule," their research was updated and expanded 10 years later. Now, as jamie points out, Communications of the ACM is running an article by Goetz Graefe with another decennial update, evaluating the rule using hardware and software typical of 2007, with an eye toward how flash memory will affect the situation. An excerpt from Graefe's conclusion: "The 20-year-old five-minute rule for RAM and disks still holds, but for ever-larger disk pages. Moreover, it should be augmented by two new five-minute rules: one for small pages moving between RAM and flash memory and one for large pages moving between flash memory and traditional disks. For small pages moving between RAM and disk, Gray and Putzolu were amazingly accurate in predicting a five-hour break-even point two decades into the future. Research into flash memory and its place in system architectures is urgent and important. Within a few years, flash memory will be used to fill the gap between traditional RAM and traditional disk drives in many operating systems, file systems, and database systems."

27 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. for those wondering: by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-minute_rule

    "The 5-minute random rule: cache randomly accessed disk pages that are re-used every 5 minutes."

  2. Not to be confused with by salahx · · Score: 5, Funny

    The more useful 5 second rule.

    1. Re:Not to be confused with by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The more useful 5 second rule.

      That's just utterly disgusting. Do people in the US really believe that you can eat food that's fallen on the floor if you pick it up fast enough?

    2. Re:Not to be confused with by SUB7IME · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know, right? What a disgusting waste of perfectly good food that has been on the ground for only 10 seconds!

    3. Re:Not to be confused with by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd rather be a disgusting American than a naive European with no sense of humor..

    4. Re:Not to be confused with by jweller · · Score: 2, Funny

      No silly, but if you catch it on the bounce, it's like it never happened

    5. Re:Not to be confused with by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the confusion is, unlike your dirt-floor huts full of your own feces, in real countries like America we have clean tile floors with miraculous inventions we call "mops".

    6. Re:Not to be confused with by Millenniumman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Normal floors are probably safer than your hands. If it's in your own home and you just dropped it or something, I can't even really imagine why it would be mentally bothersome.

      It's not really an issue if you have a dog, though.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    7. Re:Not to be confused with by squizzar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a not so naive Brit, we have our much superior 3 second rule for the same thing.

      I'd like to know what the GP has on the floors in his house that is so toxic that the tiny amount that will rub off on food is detrimental for your health? How on earth do people survive in places without nice sealed floors and cleaning chemicals? You'd think we'd have evolved some method of protecting our bodies against stuff like that.

    8. Re:Not to be confused with by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Do people in the US really believe that you can eat food
      > that's fallen on the floor if you pick it up fast enough?

      Short answer: no, but yes.

      Long answer: There are two kinds of people. Some people won't eat food that has fallen off the plate onto the table, their lap, the chair, the floor, wherever. If it fell, it's "dirty", and they throw it away.

      There are also people who think this is silly. If there's no visible dirt on it, or if you can brush it off, hey, it's still food. Unless it fell into pig excrement or something, a little surface contact with a potentially dirty surface is fundamentally unimportant. Nothing the old stomach acid can't handle in short order.

      The "thirty-second rule" arises from a clash between these two ways of thinking. Somebody drops a piece of food, picks it up, and eats it, but there's one problem: someone from the other school of thought is present, and shrieks out "Ewwwwwwww! That fell on the floooooor!" The other guy shrugs. "Yeah, so? It was only on the ground for, like, five seconds. What's your problem?"

      In practice, the number of seconds doesn't matter. Most people who have a piece of food in their hand or on their plate with the intention of eating it have put more thought into wanting to eat the food than they have into being grossed out by the floor, so if they drop the thing, they pick it up and eat it without a second thought. If it takes them thirty-two seconds to pick it up instead of thirty, or six instead of five, or whatever the local variant of the "rule" is, they won't say, "Oh, it's been a couple of seconds too long, better throw it out." The thought process is more along the lines of "Hey, I wanted that; I didn't mean to drop that; I was going to eat that; give me that. Nom nom nom."

      And going the other way, with a few exceptions, people who are grossed out by dropped food usually won't eat it if it only fell on the table or the kitchen counter. The table is "dirty", even if it was just bleached half an hour ago. The counter is "dirty" as far as the food off the plate is concerned, even if you set an apple there a moment ago (then picked it up and took a bite). The food fell, therefore it's contaminated, therefore you don't eat it.

      Personally, I consider the whole "dropped food is gross" thing to be a minor neurosis, but not one that causes any significant trouble in a society with a long-term food surplus, such as the US for instance. If it makes you feel better to throw the food away, hey, toss it in the nearest waste receptacle. No skin off my nose.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  3. Flash memory? by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I couldn't quite figure out if the article willfully ignored the advent of SSDs or was written before they were available and not updated to include them (but it appears the article was updated to include other current technology).

    Given the fact that SSDs are likely going to replace rotational media for most applications in the future, it makes this article basically meaningless, at least insofar as the fact that flash memory and the disk are/will be synonymous. As the article is basically predicated around the entire fact that flash memory will change the 5 minute rule to a degree, it invalidates the entire article.

    To be relevant, the article really needs to include the current state of SSDs and a likely projection (10 year) of where the state of the art in SSDs.

    I do, however, suspect we may see a shift from drives all together at some point (perhaps more than 10 years, but perhaps not) and the computer will just have persistent storage for everything in MRAM or some other technology that obliterates the line between RAM (for speed) and drives (for storage) - it's just one big pool that's hyper fast and persistent.

    So really, I don't think this article has held up in even the intervening two years since 2007, and it certainly won't hold up for another 10 years.

    1. Re:Flash memory? by Courageous · · Score: 3, Informative

      I couldn't quite figure out if the article willfully ignored the advent of SSDs or was written before they were available... As for the post by Argent, I wasn't sure if that was addressed to me or not - if so, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your post has absolutely nothing to do to with my original response.
       
      Argent's post refers to "flash memory". You said the article ignored SSD's, however it did not. "Flash memory" is the technology that SSD's are composed of. Did you not know this? "Flash memory" is all over the article.


      Flash SSD's will not replace SATA drives anytime within the next 4-6 years. In technology time, that's such long period of time, it would be quite difficult to make a credible projection for the consumer market space. For servers, where the segment is dominated by 10K/15K drives, you can expect flip over within 18 months.


      C//

    2. Re:Flash memory? by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You ask for evidence. How about some evidence that SSD's are being used anywhere in the way that you describe.. as a cache between rotational media and ram.

      There are millions of people already using SSD's as (superior) drive replacements.

      Do you really want evidence of the fact that SSD's are already replacing drives, that many millions of them have been sold specifically for that purpose, that even companies like Apple offer SSD's as alternatives solutions to rotational media in their standard packages?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Flash memory? by jelle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flash is an SSD, but not every SSD is flash...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    4. Re:Flash memory? by Courageous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends what segment you're talking about. There isn't one market for HDD's, there are many. In both the enterprise archival and consumer mass storage segments, drives are sold pretty much $/TB. In that segment, you won't see significant penetration for 4-6 years. In other segments, sooner. I agree with you: I want a flash SSD for my laptop currently; it just hasn't quite yet reached the right price point. It will soon. And you're right: it's not $/GB that will be the deciding factor there.

      There's also no reason to assume one way or the other. For example, I expect to put BOTH flash SSD and SATA into my desktop system shortly. I will continue to use the SATA for archival. I'll use the flash SSD as a working set.

      Do you have 15K 2.5" drives in your workstation already? I have 15K 3.5" drives for my working set.

      However, if you're like me, you must know that you are most unusual. It's a niche, surely, but hardly the mass market.

      C//

    5. Re:Flash memory? by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you've still got an external(or internal) physical HDD, then SSD's have not taken over. They've become a part of a new solution, not replaced an old solution.

  4. What article? by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article I read spent a good deal of time talking about flash memory. What article are YOU referring to?

    1. Re:What article? by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article I read spent a good deal of time talking about flash memory. What article are YOU referring to?

      The article treats flash as something you place in between hard drives and memory. This turned out not to happen (with a few exceptions). SSD's simply replace hard drives. Hybrid systems are rare, and it doesn't look like they will become more common -- either you can live with the slowness of hard drives, or you can't. The mainstream will switch to SSD's for everything except backup applications.

      There are some hybrid SAN's, but they're damn expensive. At that price they have a hard time competing with simpler pure-flash SAN's.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:What article? by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),x · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Flash is still 10-20x the price for the same GB. Recent developments have increased max magnetic density 1000x current. While you may be happy with 128GB, think of what you could do with 128TB. Store all your HD movies, lectures, conversations, life. Keep all your web history, including pix and html. And then there's the "killer app" we haven't reached yet...

      tOM

      --
      Epitaph: At last! Root access!
    3. Re:What article? by wwwillem · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hybrid systems are rare, and it doesn't look like they will become more common.

      You're probably right when we talk about desktop PCs and laptops. I'm sure the latter will be SSD only in 5-10 years time, and desktops are also losing terrain quickly against laptops.

      But when we look at datacenter grade enterprise storage, hybrid systems are currently picking up fast. The advantage is that because of the fast 'flash memory cache' you can use SATA disks instead of the FC/SCSI drives, where the former are both much bigger and much cheaper. Instead of 300 146GB 15K FC disks, you only need 30 1.5 TB 7200 RPM SATA disks. For the same capacity this results in much lower power bills, less DC floor-space costs and much better performance.

      If you say "There are some hybrid SAN's, but they're damn expensive.", have a look at what [shameless plug-on] Sun is doing, and yes, I work for Sun [plug-off]. But other storage vendors (NetApps, EMC, IBM, etc.) are starting to do similar things.

      So the whole "storage-stack" gets more and more hybrid and integrated. It consists of the full gamut of DRAM, flash memory, hard drives and finally tape. Each of these have their own strength and are used best in combination.

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
  5. I thought you were referring to the 5 second rule by vaporland · · Score: 3, Funny

    five minutes is an awful long time for food to remain on the floor before you pick it up to eat it...

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  6. External hard drives == memory hierarchy by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This article indicates that Flash Memory (AKA SSDs) are only going to be an intermediary between rotational media and RAM.

    If your handheld device or subnotebook PC has only an internal SSD and no internal hard drive, then you will store any data that doesn't fit on your SSD on a hard drive plugged into a Hi-Speed USB port, copying it to the SSD when it is needed. For example, you'd keep the video footage that you are editing on the SSD and other projects on the hard drive. That sounds to me like a memory hierarchy, albeit one that occasionally requires manual intervention to connect the (offline) long-term mass storage to the machine.

  7. Re:OS patches? by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I propose a physical switch to toggle between read/write and read only.

    And have social engineers disguise malware as OS updates or dancing bunnies, prompting the home user who doesn't understand risks to flip the switch to see the dancing bunnies.

  8. ZFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article I read spent a good deal of time talking about flash memory. What article are YOU referring to?

    The article treats flash as something you place in between hard drives and memory. This turned out not to happen (with a few exceptions). SSD's simply replace hard drives. Hybrid systems are rare, and it doesn't look like they will become more common -- either you can live with the slowness of hard drives, or you can't. The mainstream will switch to SSD's for everything except backup applications.

    There are some hybrid SAN's, but they're damn expensive. At that price they have a hard time competing with simpler pure-flash SAN's.

    Except if you're using ZFS. You can put a (SLC or MLC) SSD drive into just about any system and tell it to act as a (write or read) cache.

  9. Re:OS patches? by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MSDN? Noted. The author of that article has a vested interest in an operating system prone to such exploits.

    Ad hominem.

    the Linux user is somewhat less likely to a: have admin rights or to b: grant admin rights to a program if he has them.

    In the case of Linux on the home desktop, the owner of the PC has admin rights, and I don't see how granting setuid is any harder to social-engineer out of an inexperienced Linux user than out of an inexperienced Windows user.

    When I look at bunnies, I see food.

    What about dancing scantily clad people of the appropriate sex?

  10. the king is dead by epine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I love about slashdot is its scalability. The discussion ranges anywhere from the design of a Google data center in 2015 to some guy's psychological stance toward his next netbook purchase in 2009. Sometimes it's unclear which end of the spectrum is under debate, but the discussion happily progresses in a state of astral superposition. When this gets too confusing, even for slashdot, the moderation system helps to sort things out. For example, if the comment

    Flash memory is set to replace rotational media.

    is moderated +1 insightful, then we know we're talking about some guy's future netbook purchase. Or if the same comment is moderated -1 troll, then we know we're talking about Google data centers in 2015.

    Flash memory begins to fade - ZDNet.co.uk from 2005

    "The scaling laws are not favourable to flash," said Tom Lee, an associate professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University and a founder of Matrix Semiconductor, which makes a 3D memory chip that performs flash-like functions. "The noises are getting louder now, so it looks like manufacturers are already in that new age of diminished gains."

    Numonyx Breakthrough Delivers First 45nm NOR Flash Memory Chips from Jan 2009

    "Numonyx engineers overcame major scaling limitations by developing new process techniques to produce the 7th generation MLC NOR flash on the industry's most advanced 45nm technology, and to be the first to bring the cost and performance benefits to our customers."
    ...
    "At a time when the entire industry grapples with the scalability of all flash memory technologies, ..."

    Brewster Kahle

    I think Brewster Kahle is going to jump off a bridge when he learns that Seagate is exiting the disk drive business in 2010. If you think CERN or EOS cost a lot of money, try updating the budget with SSD specified as the primary storage layer.

    A useful way to view this transition is the long tail on steroids. 99% of the world's stored information will be held by a few hundred mega-scale institutions (NASA, Google, CERN, GenBank) on rotating hard drives, while 99% of the world's gadgets have no hard drive at all.

    The same thing happened in software. The C language represents a tiny sliver of source code written over the last ten years, but if you could measure the number of machine instructions executed by language of origin, C would continue to represent a very large slice of the pie. A major factor in the success of scripting languages is that the problems these languages don't handle well can be off-loaded to a well established compiled language. If you cherry pick your niche, it's amazing how much more convenient it looks compared to the ancestral technology which didn't.

    I thought the paper was quite good, and more relevant than 99% of what I read these days. I'm always interested in analysis of hybrid solutions. In the engineering world, there is a de facto allergy to hybrid solutions. We tend to achieve the best result by scaling a single virtue to the max, rather than engaging in the jello-like trade-offs involved in balancing complementary virtues. I first began to think about this when ethernet trounced ATM by the simple measure of vastly over-provisioning bandwidth.

    The exception to this is on the large scale where operational costs exceed all other costs, such as major data centers.

    This is one of the reasons why progress in ecology is so painfully achieved: ecological systems almost always demand hybrid solutions, and we're not terribly comfortable with this. Engineers prefer monarchy. In ecological systems, life is complicated, and you can't just sit there and

  11. Carpets are safer ... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Carpets don't transfer as many bacteria

    Scientists have put the commonly-cited five-second rule to the test. They found that food that comes into contact with a tile or wood floor does pick up large amounts of bacteria. Food doesn't pick up many germs when it hits carpet, but it does pick up carpet fuzz.

    Since this is slashdot, I'd bet most will pick bacteria over carpet fuzz any day ... after all, if it doesn't look fuzzy ...

    or this ...

    many people believe that gastric acid enzymes found in the stomach are strong enough to destroy the "small, harmless" amount of bacteria that could gather on a piece of food in five seconds. But are these bacteria really harmless?

    In 2003, Jillian Clarke, then a high school senior, decided she wanted to find out. During an internship at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, she and a doctoral candidate, Meredith Agle, took swab samples from floors all over the campus, including labs, hallways, and bathrooms, and found that the amount of bacteria on the floors was very low. When she published her research, she concluded that if a piece of food falls on a relatively clean floor, the five-second rule is, in fact, applicable.