Slashdot Mirror


HP To Introduce Flash Memory Replacement In 2013

Spy Hunter writes "Memristors are the basis of a new memory technology being developed by HP and Hynix. At the International Electronics Forum, Stan Williams, senior fellow at HP Labs, said, 'We're planning to put a replacement chip on the market to go up against flash within a year and a half. We're running hundreds of wafers through the fab, and we're way ahead of where we thought we would be at this moment in time.' They're not stopping at a flash replacement either, with Williams saying, 'In 2014 possibly, or certainly by 2015, we will have a competitor for DRAM and then we'll replace SRAM.' With a non-volatile replacement for DRAM and SRAM, will we soon see the end of the reboot entirely?"

182 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Ofcourse not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ofcourse we will not see the end of the reboot entirely. I have yet to encounter a Windows or Linux system that you can upgrade without rebooting. (In practice that is, in theory it should all work.)
    Memristors will make a dent in the small scale UPS market since there will be no need to shut down gracefully but we will still need large scale backup system where you want to continue running your operation during power outage.
    The real change we will see is when memristors replace flash and dram since there will no longer make sense to keep the bulk storage in a different memory from the rest of the system. Everything will be memory mapped always like it was in the good old ROM-based days.
    The problem is that both Windows and Linux is badly prepared for this since both of them uses executable program structures that require modification upon loading. A lot of programs are also using datafiles in an abstract format that require extensive parsing before usage. (Like XML or other text based configuration files.)
    This makes it hard to transition into XIP-system where loading is something that doesn't happen. (Did anyone with a battery backed SRAM PCMCIA-card try eXecute In Place on the Amiga? I would like to know if it actually worked or if it was just a term mentioned in the manuals. It should have worked since it's not really any different from compiling programs for memory-resident operation.)

    1. Re:Ofcourse not by Hexadecimal+Kid · · Score: 2

      Why will linux have a problem with this? The structures that require modification are copies of the data on disc, why should that change? Copy these from the non-running programme to private pages, modify the process page table, job done. I doubt windows is any different. Basically the same mechanism in use now, but source the original, non-executing text, from a different place, memory rather than filesystem. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere that programmes will never need loading or initialising again, of course they will, but once done, the state of that "running" instance persists across power off/on.

    2. Re:Ofcourse not by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2

      that's why he said 'in practice'.

    3. Re:Ofcourse not by TheLink · · Score: 2

      lot of programs are also using datafiles in an abstract format that require extensive parsing before usage. (Like XML or other text based configuration files.)

      This makes it hard to transition into XIP-system where loading is something that doesn't happen

      Configuration files aren't going away, and I don't see why you think they are a problem. There are good reasons why they exist and a new form of memory does not remove those reasons.

      One man's impedance mismatch is another man's layer of abstraction.

      --
    4. Re:Ofcourse not by macshit · · Score: 1

      I have yet to encounter a Windows or Linux system that you can upgrade without rebooting. (In practice that is, in theory it should all work.)

      The only part of an upgrade that requires rebooting on a modern well-designed linux distro (e.g. Debian, where upgrading-without-rebooting is normal practice) is to start the new kernel, if there happens to be one. Of course you can install a new kernel without rebooting, and just keep on using the old one until the next time you happen to reboot—that works fine.

      [Yeah I know there are techniques that try to avoid even the start-the-new-kernel reboot, but so far as I've seen, they're kinda dodgy....]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    5. Re:Ofcourse not by skids · · Score: 1

      Linux is in the tail end of integrating its embedded forks with the mainline kernel. These come with XIP binary formats, since RAM-constrained systems often want to keep execute binaries primarily from directly mapped flash. There will be some work involved (e.g. getting ARM ELF-FDPIC implemented in the gcc toolchain and hashing out the geometric explosion of toolchain tuples in a sane manner so people tasked with managing libtool et. al. don't end up in insane asylums) and all the distros will have a fun speed-bump managing migrations to new ELF variants, but since in the meantime there will be plenty of systems that don't need XIP, but can do it, I suspect the transition will be smooth, if arduous.

    6. Re:Ofcourse not by julesh · · Score: 1

      The problem is that both Windows and Linux is badly prepared for this since both of them uses executable program structures that require modification upon loading.

      Yes and no. Both use executable formats that are designed to cope with the possibility that modifications may be required upon loading, but in both cases, no modifications are required if all modules can be loaded at their preferred location. This should happen for most Windows software that uses only MS-provided DLLs, and can be made to happen for Linux software using the 'prelink' tool. Also, both formats package up points that are likely to need changing and pack them all together into a minimal number of pages (using jump tables, thunks, and similar techniques), which should minimize the disruption even when changes are required.

    7. Re:Ofcourse not by mlts · · Score: 2

      What might be interesting would be a hypervisor technology that can copy process memory space and other items to another VM completely. This way, an application sitting on VM "A" gets paused, its data copied to VM "B", and the old VM "A" shut down. Since both VMs would see the same filesystems (except perhaps /boot might be different due to the new kernel), an application likely wouldn't know or care about the kernel update unless some call it used got deprecated. Of course, there are plenty of consistency issues that would be needed to be worked out, but this is the next logical step.

    8. Re:Ofcourse not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have yet to encounter a Windows or Linux system that you can upgrade without rebooting. (In practice that is, in theory it should all work.)

      Actually, on Windows, it can't work in theory. Microsoft's implementations of their file systems all have a defect that prevents files from being deleted, renamed or overwritten without a reboot. (There are some limited cases where these operations can be done without rebooting, but the general case requires a reboot.)

      This is a design defect in Microsoft's implementations of all their file systems, and Microsoft has made it clear (via two decades of inaction) that they will not fix this defect.

    9. Re:Ofcourse not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      XIP? Maybe PalmOS will make a comeback :D

      (Only half joking; PalmOS is still so much easier and faster to use on my TH55 than Android or iOS. It's horrific that as a usable tool (As opposed to flashy show-off device), my TH55 still has no competitor in the smartphone market.
      It can run 5 days on a single charge with heavy use vs 1-2 days with Androids and iPhones, and despite having a CPU an order of magnitude slower (123MHz vs 1+ GHz) it's still far more responsive!)

    10. Re:Ofcourse not by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it would work any different than how sleep mode works right now, with the only difference being that you no longer have to keep the ram powered in order to maintain its contents while the computer sleeps. It won't be the end of the reboot, just the end of hibernate mode.

    11. Re:Ofcourse not by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Or, to put it an other way, "Will Moore's Law be proven and/or violated ?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. End of the reboot? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reboots usually don't happen because of hardware, and certainly not because of the type of RAM you're running. It's bad software.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    1. Re:End of the reboot? by gman003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume, then, that you never shut your computer down for the night. Or for the weekend.

    2. Re:End of the reboot? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Why is this BS always attached to memristor articles?

      Reboots are for updating kernels and when you want to save power on an unused machine. Or when you run OSes that cannot run a few years without reboot...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:End of the reboot? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I assume, then, that you never shut your computer down for the night. Or for the weekend.

      I turn my computer on for the night and the weekend*.

      * you insensitive clod!

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    4. Re:End of the reboot? by flanders_down · · Score: 2

      Reboots usually don't happen because of hardware, and certainly not because of the type of RAM you're running. It's Windows.

      Fixed that for you....

    5. Re:End of the reboot? by trold · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've missed an important point here. Non-volatile RAM means than powering off does not imply a reboot. When power returns the next morning, or after the weekend, the computer is still in the same state as when you pulled the plug Friday evening. /trold

    6. Re:End of the reboot? by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      This assumes that the CPU is also completely non-volatile, and all the other hardware elements.
      It's likely not to be the case, at least in the short term, hardware will absolutely require some shutdown time, to get to a stable standby state.

      You do not go from a billion operations a second to zero cleanly, just by yanking the power.

    7. Re:End of the reboot? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I think most people Hibernate their computers these days. I definitely do. Ever since the Linux kernel could be updated without a reboot I haven't had to reboot my machines at all.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    8. Re:End of the reboot? by wjousts · · Score: 4, Funny

      My computer turns me on for nights and weekends!

    9. Re:End of the reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody asked for your opinion, Soviet Russia!

    10. Re:End of the reboot? by trold · · Score: 1

      True, but flushing CPU cache is many orders of magnitude faster than writing to disk. Except they probably want to use this technology to merge disk and RAM.

    11. Re:End of the reboot? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I never do. Why? Economy of resources?

      The light in my kitchen in the morning is exactly the same light as it was in the evening.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    12. Re:End of the reboot? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      As I posted below, the stub writer means that this is the the end of cold boots, as system state is persistent in memory even with no power.

      Reboots for maintenance will require much more than non-volatile RAM.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:End of the reboot? by Idbar · · Score: 2

      I hibernate it. If the headline was meant as the end of hibernation and a new era of powerless sleep, then it's fine. But I really see no correlation with reboots unless the memory was also leak proof.

    14. Re:End of the reboot? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2

      I assume, then, that you never shut your computer down for the night. Or for the weekend.

      The common PC at home is never powered off unless my gf feels "sorry for the machine and wants to give it some rest" (once every few months)

      The PC in my appartment is never powered off.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    15. Re:End of the reboot? by AlecC · · Score: 2

      True, but a CPU ought to be able to store all that it needs to of its state in a small fraction of a second. Most PSUs will hold power for this long, so that if they can give an "power failed" interrupt half a second before dropping the main voltage, it should be OK. You will have to flush dirty cache lines to main memory, but not dirty disk sectors to disk. Similarly, the disk should be able to complete transfers actually in progress in that same fraction of a second.

      The problem will be, as you say, other hardware elements. However, many such elements are now being USB connected, and USB is explicitly supposed to be tolerant to hot plug/unplug - which is what a power fail should resemble. The main non-USB connected device is the monitor (and secondary monitors can be USB connected). Fix that, and you will have a chance of PCs which stop in mid stride on power failure and pick up when it returns.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    16. Re:End of the reboot? by Kartu · · Score: 1

      Don't want to dissapoing anyone, but I haven't rebooted Win7 on my Lenovo notebook for about 2 years. When I power it off it hibernates.

    17. Re:End of the reboot? by tepples · · Score: 2

      My laptop still drains its battery while suspended. It drains much slower, but it still drains.

    18. Re:End of the reboot? by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Don't want to dissapoing anyone, but I haven't rebooted Win7 on my Lenovo notebook for about 2 years. When I power it off it hibernates.

      Hey, I don't want to alarm you or anything... but your system might be vulnerable to a things... I try to reboot mine regularly after patching security holes.

    19. Re:End of the reboot? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Don't want to dissapoing anyone, but I haven't rebooted Win7 on my Lenovo notebook for about 2 years. When I power it off it hibernates.

      Guess that makes you about two years behind in Win7 security patches then.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    20. Re:End of the reboot? by satch89450 · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend leaves her computers on most of the time. The only time she shuts them down is when there is a thunderstorm: in her neighborhood, the power lines are above-ground including pole mounted transformers, so are prone to lightning hits that can cause significant spikes. In my case, everything is completely underground, with pad-mounted transformers on the ground, so I don't need to worry so much about lightning.

      I've told her the "fix" is to put a 100-foot extension cord on her computer. Acts like a distributed filter, it does. Takes the 6000-volt spikes ("sparking of the clearances") down to a 800-volt ring wave that most power supplies can take, especially those protected with a power strip containing MOVs.

    21. Re:End of the reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correct on some counts, but missing others.
      Ultimately, there will be no disk, or even SSD. The whole machine will be memristor based. Imagine 1TB of flat memristor space.
      Since task context would be stored in memristor (replacing DRAM as well) then a power off to power on transition only need to load the last context.
      Truly instant on.

    22. Re:End of the reboot? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I reboot at most once a week, more likely once a month. The rest of the time is deep sleep, or whatever windows calls writing its state to state and powering down.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    23. Re:End of the reboot? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Ive got 8GB RAM, hibernate works just fine, thanks.

      More often I use hybrid sleep (not sure if its a windows, or a bios feature), which sleeps for a length of time (say an hour), and if I havent resumed, it wakes up just enough to flush ram to disk.

      Means I never have to worry about sleep battery, or waiting for my laptop to finish hibernating.

    24. Re:End of the reboot? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      This assumes that disks will not manage to keep ahead in price/performance of these memristors. People have predicted the death of hard disks many times over teh past two decades to my knowledge, and always been proved wrong. Memristors may well wipe out current flash, but they are chasing a moving target with disks.

      Of course, low end systems will no longer need the vast space offered by disks. We are already seeing that with tablets. The average hope PC may go diskless. But the ever increasing assumption that "storage is cheap" will mean that people will always want large storage systems for some uses.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    25. Re:End of the reboot? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      S3 Sleep.

    26. Re:End of the reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why kludge when you can easily have the actual fix?

      I have a small UPS under my desk. It can only power my station for about 7 minutes, but it can take one hell of a power spike

    27. Re:End of the reboot? by Entrope · · Score: 1

      You would need some honking huge capacitors to provide a half-second of hold-up for a typical desktop once AC goes away -- but milliseconds is achievable. That is more than a CPU needs to flush cache to RAM, but not enough to cleanly shut down certain USB-powered devices (such rotating drives).

    28. Re:End of the reboot? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      No, never. I hibernate it instead. Saving the state of my workspace is vital, and saves lots of time. I don't really care about the time it takes to hibernate or come out of hibernation.

    29. Re:End of the reboot? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you make an update to certain important system executables or files, there is simply no getting around rebooting, as you cannot simply terminate the appropriate executable and restart it without having to also restart all the processes that depend on that executable, which in some cases can be essentially equivalent to rebooting.

    30. Re:End of the reboot? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      My laptop still drains its battery while suspended. It drains much slower, but it still drains.

      Even if suspended to disk?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    31. Re:End of the reboot? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I close the lid, and it hibernates then. No waiting an hour and wasting the power.

      And it pops back up in 25 seconds when I ask it to. I can live with that.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    32. Re:End of the reboot? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      I think you meant "Teenage Youth!"

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    33. Re:End of the reboot? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You will have to flush dirty cache lines to main memory

      Since cache is just SRAM, if SRAM is replaced by memristors, you don't even need to do that. Just save the registers into memory (probably the processor would have a special register storage on chip for that, so you don't even need to access memory).

      What you'll still need to do is to properly shut down/reinitialize your peripherals (e.g. you don't want data from your USB memory stick in the cache when powering off, because the stick might get removed after power down, or even removed, modified on another computer, and then reinserted before the next power up).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    34. Re:End of the reboot? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I've had two machines come out of suspend to disk with a blank screen. I've had another machine come out of suspend to disk with no audio. I've had yet another machine come out of suspend to disk only to have the window system crash two minutes later. And on a machine with enough RAM, coming out of suspend takes about as long as a cold boot.

    35. Re:End of the reboot? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      With a split path, one with a 1pF capacitor and low power isolated by diode off the mains and one with a more substantial capacitor bank (a bank of 3x100uF caps makes my guitar amp hold power for a good 1 second), you could get a pretty good "POWER HAS GONE AWAY" signal that would trigger a performance-impacting fluctuation. CPU immediately halts, pushes cache out. BIOS flat out cuts power to disk immediately; the OS should have the data being written still in RAM, and can get a power fault interrupt and flush all cached data to disk again. With some fancy coding, it could feasibly recognize and verify USB devices and determine if a re-flush is safe and sane.

    36. Re:End of the reboot? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of euthanasia, including Soviet Russia.

    37. Re:End of the reboot? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why? Security patches don't need a reboot anymore.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    38. Re:End of the reboot? by definate · · Score: 1

      I'm in my late 20's you insensitive clod!

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    39. Re:End of the reboot? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Probably not. This is more like "cache" from a Powered off state. I doubt it is faster than DRAM, or SRAM. It might be, and that will be a game changer in other ways.

      I've long suspected that we're going to start looking at all of the "memory" as it relates to speed, as layers of cache, rather than volatile and non-volatile. We will start thinking about is as moving the data from slower to faster memory, regardless of volatility.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    40. Re:End of the reboot? by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      I've got 16 GB of RAM and an SSD. SDD is so fast I don't even bother hibernating.

    41. Re:End of the reboot? by mikael · · Score: 2

      Where do you put the 100-foot extension cord? Do you wrap it around the supporting beams of the house, or the desk?

      I'd hate to imagine what kind of electromagnetic field a 100-foot cable at 120V/240V is going to generate. Our workplace had urban legends of having coils of cable around objects like metal trashcans, and heating things to the extent they caught fire (batteries, extension cords, etc...)

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    42. Re:End of the reboot? by mlts · · Score: 2

      That sounds good, but on the other hand, I don't want an app that corrupts memory to trash my hard disk.

      The tiered storage concept may sound antiquated as we get higher capacity media with higher speeds, but it also protects us against widespread data damage.

      For example, if some process had a buffer overflow, it usually will just impact the RAM its in, and at worst case, cause a reboot. If everything was all memory mapped, all the stored data would be in jeopardy, so what once would necessitate a reset button push would require a bare metal backup.

      Some tasks, like embedded stuff, this wouldn't be a problem. However, I'd stick with the tiered storage model for most computing just to isolate failure and corruption, even though the RAM level of storage may be just as fast as the disk level.

    43. Re:End of the reboot? by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      I've been patching my Win 7 box since I got it. Service packs, security patches, hot fixes, etc. If you've never had to reboot after any of those... you aren't patching enough.

    44. Re:End of the reboot? by mlts · · Score: 1

      From the tinfoil hatter's point of view, it would be nice to have enough power to be able to overwrite master encryption keys multiple times, then set a flag that as soon as the CPU is turned on, to move register state aside, switch to the hypervisor, and wait for re-obtaining of keys, either by scanning the boot path and checking the TPM, checking with the Mandos server, or prompting the user for a passphrase to unlock and reload keys back into memory.

    45. Re:End of the reboot? by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      Putting the computer to sleep is so 2000s. My computer boots from SSD in under 10 seconds, bypassing all the buggy ACPI crap and fear of a dead battery.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    46. Re:End of the reboot? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I assume, then, that you never shut your computer down for the night. Or for the weekend.

      It's been my experience that most IT people rarely do this. I don't. Most of the people who do this are non-IT people who fear that if they don't watch their PC every second it's in use, terrible, dire things will happen. I've yet to have anyone in this category provide some sort of sensible explanation for doing it. It NEVER has anything to do with saving electricity. It seems to be some sort of unfounded fear that if you (gasp!) leave your PC powered up overnight while you sleep that leet Russian haxors will pwn your box, yet if you only keep the PC powered up while you are using it, that simply cannot happen.

      I agree with the grandparent that reboots usually don't happen because of RAM. I'm not really getting how moving to a new type of memory is going to be helpful here.

    47. Re:End of the reboot? by serialband · · Score: 1

      I only reboot for the monthly denial of service patching. That's when I also do the system reconfigurations. I have far too many ssh and remote desktop windows open to want to shutdown and restart those every morning.

    48. Re:End of the reboot? by bored · · Score: 1

      It's likely not to be the case, at least in the short term, hardware will absolutely require some shutdown time, to get to a stable standby state.

      And the reinit time to resync the PCIe links, release an IP, etc..

      We have similar functionality today in the form of S3 sleep which powers everything down but the RAM. Resuming requires all the drivers to wake their hardware and get it operational again.

    49. Re:End of the reboot? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Putting the computer to sleep is so 2000s. My computer boots from SSD in under 10 seconds, bypassing all the buggy ACPI crap and fear of a dead battery.

      +0.5

      Having a SSD (or even a 10k RPM SATA) makes modern machines a pleasure to use again if you need to reboot frequently or if you're a multi-tasker.

      I still regularly use the "suspend" option on my laptop, however, even with the SSD installed. It takes at least a few hours for a suspended laptop to drain the battery and it's more likely to wake up then hibernate (and much faster).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    50. Re:End of the reboot? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > USB is explicitly supposed to be tolerant to hot plug/unplug

      Hot-plug doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

      USB is hot-plug in the sense that it does not (generally) require you to physically power down the computer in order to unplug or plug in the device, as PCI and IDE and some PS/2 implementations do, but that does NOT mean you can necessarily just yank it at any random time without warning. Among other things, operating systems do not guarantee that the higher-level USB-based standard interfaces (e.g., mass storage device or scanner-and-camera interface) will tolerate that from the software side, regardless of what the peripheral itself does or does not support.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    51. Re:End of the reboot? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      And THAT might be the real plus of the new memory over DRAM and SRAM.

      The memory not needing power while sleeping, or even while sitting idle, thereby extending battery life.

      What I absolutely *don't* get is why the summary made a connection to re-boots. There is nothing that I can see how the layout of the memory has any implication on whether an OS needs to be rebooted or not.

    52. Re:End of the reboot? by bjs555 · · Score: 1

      I assume, then, that you never shut your computer down for the night. Or for the weekend.

      It's been my experience that most IT people rarely do this. I don't. Most of the people who do this are non-IT people who fear that if they don't watch their PC every second it's in use, terrible, dire things will happen. I've yet to have anyone in this category provide some sort of sensible explanation for doing it.

      You're sleeping soundly in bed. Your computer power supply fails and catches fire. You'll never have to worry about turning off your computer again.

    53. Re:End of the reboot? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - I know that. I work on firmware inside USB peripherals. But the same fraction of a second of DC remaining after the AC goes should allow all outstanding transactions to be completed on well-behaved peripherals.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    54. Re:End of the reboot? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The light in my kitchen in the morning is exactly the same light as it was in the evening.

      You must have very high quality mirrors in your kitchen ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    55. Re:End of the reboot? by YouDieAtTheEnd · · Score: 1

      It NEVER has anything to do with saving electricity.

      Seriously? That's practically the only reason I ever shut my computers off and the only answer I've ever gotten from people when I've bothered to ask. You must either have some really paranoid friends or not know that many IT people. If I left all the hardware in my house powered up all the time it would cost me a fortune in bills, not to mention it's decidedly bad for the electrical grid and the ecosystem.

    56. Re:End of the reboot? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What I absolutely *don't* get is why the summary made a connection to re-boots.

      Perhaps the writer of the summary took it for granted that people shut down their computers instead of putting them to sleep, either because of this slow drain or because of device driver defects like those I mentioned earlier.

    57. Re:End of the reboot? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Computers which don't wake from sleep or hibernate reliably are so 1990s. Mine wakes from sleep in a second or from hibernate in under 10 and everything is exactly the way I left it. I spend most of my time when I reboot restoring my state - open applications, files etc. Waiting for the machine to do its stuff is the least time consuming part.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    58. Re:End of the reboot? by dfries · · Score: 1

      up 163 days (desktop)
      up 139 days (desktop)
      up 27 days (laptop)
      up 15 days (cell phone)

      That's just the systems within an arms reach of where I'm sitting. Interesting that the ones which I spend the most time on are the ones that stay up the longest.

      The laptop was a kernel upgrade to see if I could figure out why the CPU frequency was getting clocked down under load, I decided it was hot and intend to replace the thermal grease. I think the N900 reboot was testing a startup script or something. Shutdown at night? Why? I know people who use more electricity in light bulbs than these computers take, and light bulbs are close to instant on and off.

    59. Re:End of the reboot? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, there's some truth to that. That PC running unattended is still clocking up hours on the hard drive and is slowly clogging with dust. Unless you have a good UPS it's also being subject to power spikes and brownouts coming through the electrical line that it wouldn't have to deal with otherwise. Granted, the chances of something happening to a running computer while you're away is not really any different than the chances of something happening while you're using it, but those chances are a lot larger than something happening to the computer when it's off.

    60. Re:End of the reboot? by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      It NEVER has anything to do with saving electricity.

      Seriously? That's practically the only reason I ever shut my computers off and the only answer I've ever gotten from people when I've bothered to ask. You must either have some really paranoid friends or not know that many IT people. If I left all the hardware in my house powered up all the time it would cost me a fortune in bills, not to mention it's decidedly bad for the electrical grid and the ecosystem.

      I always turn my computer off at night, mainly because of bills - because I've had to start paying them recently (no longer at parents/student houses where the cost is shared).

      It helps that the computer goes from off (no power) to usable (system loaded and no start up processes still running) in 20 seconds, and I don't really have the need to try and make it quicker.

    61. Re:End of the reboot? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I meant the light coming from the bulb. I did not get the mirrors remark, sorry..

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    62. Re:End of the reboot? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The bulb makes new light all the time. Mirrors reflect the incoming light back, and the better they are, the lower the losses. If the light from the evening is still there in the morning, you must have incredibly low losses, and therefore incredibly high quality mirrors.

      OK, strictly speaking, light has no identity. But the point is, with your bulb there's an energy flow from the bulb to anything absorbing the light in your kitchen (i.e. basically everything). With ideal mirrors everywhere in the kitchen (and -- probably incorrectly -- neglecting the absorption by the air), you'd need not have a light source to still have light in the kitchen in the morning if it was there in the evening (but then, the very moment you opened the door, it would already be gone anyway :-)).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    63. Re:End of the reboot? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I am talking about the state of the light for ME as its user: whether I turn it off by night or not, in the morning its the same except for rare cases when the bulb dies. What the heck are YOU talking about?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    64. Re:End of the reboot? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Physics jokes. Don't bother - he's just from the same asylum as me.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. Will this get HP out of the brown stuff by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will mark the start of an upturn which will stop them changing CEOs quite so rapidly....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  4. Can we believe HP? by shic · · Score: 1

    My bullshit detector is going off - and it's not because I don't believe this sort of technology is just around the corner - because it is. I just don't have confidence that it will be brought to us by HP... given recent evidence HP seems quite capable of snatching any defeat from the jaws of victory.

    1. Re:Can we believe HP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One could speculate that the reason why they got out of the (volatile) consumer market is that they are betting their money on memristors. Why make and market a few devices when you have a monopoly on parts that will go into everyone else's?

    2. Re:Can we believe HP? by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given the HP board of directors' track record in making good decisions, one could speculate that they would invest in TTL chip technology for the same reason.

      Yes, hundreds of wafers ahead of schedule is good, but they haven't even sold one chip yet. It's hardly time to go all in and throw the car keys on the table, too.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Can we believe HP? by jpstanle · · Score: 1

      One could speculate that the reason why they got out of the (volatile) consumer market is that they are betting their money on memristors. Why make and market a few devices when you have a monopoly on parts that will go into everyone else's?

      But if this were the case, why would they fail to make a visible statement about their memristor business either before or at the same time that they announce their abandonment of the consumer electronics market? It's one thing to say "Hey, we're radically changing our business model, but it's because we've got this great new product that is basically a license to print money," and completely another thing to say, "Oh hey, we're giving up on everything we've been doing for the past decade because it's low margin" with no explanation why.

    4. Re:Can we believe HP? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      They never mentioned the price. HP might decide to charge a lot of money for this technology, which could make it impractical in many applications. That could effectively screw it up until the patents expire.

    5. Re:Can we believe HP? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe they wanted the stock to go down in order to buy more of it ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Can we believe HP? by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

      If they really got this, I doubt they're that dumb. Part of being a competitor is in price. Every business wants to succeed, right?

  5. Reboot???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What has memory to do with reboot.

    Powerless hybernation is much more interesting.

    1. Re:Reboot???? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      What has memory to do with reboot.

      Powerless hybernation is much more interesting.

      Hibernation is SSSSSSLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW.

      Let's say you have 8 GB RAM on your system. When you put your system to hibernate, it writes that 8 GB to disk and shuts down. When you "wake" the system back up, it looks for hibernation data. If it finds it, it loads it back into RAM from your disk. How long does it take your system to read 8GB of data from your HDD?

      With non-volatile memory, you are able to remove power from your machine through power failure or "hibernation", but the data stays where it was, in RAM. When you return power to the machine, there is no need to reload the 8GB from the disk because it's already there. It can literally be instant power off and on since no data has to be written or read.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Reboot???? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      With non-volatile memory, you are able to remove power from your machine through power failure or "hibernation", but the data stays where it was, in RAM.

      Well, that's what suspend does already. Of course non-volatile memory would improve that too, as there would be no more need for the small current to keep the RAM alive.

    3. Re:Reboot???? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      How long does it take your system to read 8GB of data from your HDD?
      Well, I have a SSD. I don't use hibernate,but if I did, in theory it should take about 20 seconds.
      I also have Sata-3 drives, so 8 GB saved on those should be about 90 seconds. But I have to wonder. Surely they are clever enough to only store that part of memory which is actually in use? I've got 4 GB on my laptop, but I rarely use more than 2 GB. Most people would not be using anywhere close to their max memory when they are at a point where they are thinking about hibernating the computer.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Reboot???? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      On Windows un-allocated memory, and disk cache memory are discarded. The remaining memory is compressed before being written to disk. The hibernation file reserves an amount equal to RAM for the worst case scenario.

    5. Re:Reboot???? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Let's say you have 8 GB RAM on your system. When you put your system to hibernate, it writes that 8 GB to disk and shuts down.

      Given it doesn't write caches to disk it would be highly unusual for it to actually have to write all 8 GiB to disk, and most OSs compress the hibernation file.

      How long does it take your system to read 8GB of data from your HDD?

      Not only a straw man but irrelevant unless all you do with your computer is stare at your desktop. You should be asking is "How long does it take from me to get back to what I was doing?".

      if you're actually using 8 GiB of RAM to do your work you're going to have to load it off disk or run the processes which created that data anyway. It's not like a clean reboot gets you back to the same state as restoring from hibernation.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  6. End of the reboot? Hahaha! by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 1

    Windows users will still need them every time they change things, or to clean up tiny software flaws...

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    1. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by Nimatek · · Score: 1

      The PC I'm posting this from runs Linux (a rolling release distro even) and has been running for 35 days with many updates applied in that time. Had to restart X when the desktop environment was updated. I will have to reboot for the kernel update though.

    2. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      My windows machine has been up for 2 months.

      My Mac hasn't rebooted for god knows how long.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    3. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I actually think that an Ubuntu desktop would tick just fine (and be pretty secure) if only the point releases (version xx.yy.z) were installed and nothing upgraded in between.

    4. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Ditto on my home Windows 7 machine, it gets rebooted exactly as often as there are critical security updates which isn't as often as people seem to think, usually not more than once a month. My XP machine at work has been up for... wow... 69 days, 9 hours apparently thanks to my IT department not pushing out updates like they should.

    5. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by julesh · · Score: 1

      Linux only really needs rebooting when either the kernel or libc is updated. All other updates can be applied by simply stopping and restarting the relevant services, which is a much faster, less aggressive option. In the last year, this has happened only 4 times for my current distribution. I have also shut the same system down once to replace a faulty hard disk.

      My Windows systems have required restarting on average about 30 times over the same period. This has been for several reasons:

      - To install non-kernel updates that still require a reboot for no good reason
      - To clear up a recurring bug in the power management system that stops hibernation from working periodically
      - To clear up a bug in the screen saver / lock system that prevents the screen saver from applying, and stops the welcome screen showing after display power saving cancels (resulting in the screen effectively never locking)
      - As part of the installation processes for several applications (e.g. Visual Studio 2010, which requires 2 reboots during installation).
      - To fix a buggy scanner driver that fails every time the user cancels a scan operation and cannot be fixed without rebooting (under Linux, even this could be fixed with rmmod/insmod, but no equivalent exists for Windows drivers).

    6. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by julesh · · Score: 1

      My windows machine has been up for 2 months.

      Then there are critical security updates you haven't applied. (e.g. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms11-057 )

    7. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I still have to reboot my Linux desktop every time my ATI graphic crap crashes and needs the reboot.

    8. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      ATI graphic

      I think we've found the problem.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    9. Re:End of the reboot? Hahaha! by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I have some kind of love story with ATI graphics, that dates back when I used them on Windows.

      I've tried NVidia once on Linux. The thing was more stable, for sure. The card died 3 month after I bought it. It was fanless, but it sure looked like it could have done better with a fan. I went back to ATI.

  7. That's some nice pie by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

    they're selling us. It sounds good but I'll believe it when I see it (vaporware?).

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  8. Useless speculation is useless by jnelson4765 · · Score: 1

    Reboots are not necessary on many machines right now - I have to remind my boss to reboot every few weeks when something finally goes wonky in the network settings on his Mac laptop. Standby mode lasts for a very long time now... and most required reboots are from operating system updates. With modern SSDs, you don't even need to wait that long to boot. My work machine with a modern SSD takes about 7 seconds to boot Windows 7. My home machine, with less services to start, boots in about 4.

    But honestly, they may be saying that, but it's not like DRAM speeds will be sitting still. And a store/load cycle that can compete with flash is an order of magnitude slower than one that can compete with modern DRAM chips. But don't let that get in the way of crystal ball gazing.

    --
    Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
    1. Re:Useless speculation is useless by tepples · · Score: 1

      Every time my desktop computer is restarted, it's because it just loaded an updated version of "the read only (ie: code) portions of the OS" from the network.

  9. I knew flash was just a fad. by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    I was just waiting to be proven right.

  10. end of the HDD by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it won't mean the end of the reboot, stupid editor. This is sSlashdot, don't you know you have a Microsoft-Windows-BSOD-Daily-reboot meme to maintain?? :)

    What I think it could mean the end of is the HDD, or rather the distinction between memory and storage. If all your apps and long-term-storage data could be placed into RAM, then you'd do it wouldn't you. (this assume a few things, like reliability and long-term unpowered persistence) but imagine having 500Gb of RAM that just happened to hold all your data, rather than keeping it separate and shuffling it between the two. That could be quite a change for the way we see computers compared to the ways we've been using them for the last 40 odd years.

    1. Re:end of the HDD by Pharago · · Score: 1

      the end of ram maybe, not the other way around

    2. Re:end of the HDD by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is old is new again.

      There was a project at MIT LCS/AI back in the mid-80s to explore what it would mean to have massive amounts of RAM. A machine was designed with 1 GB of main memory. By today's standards, that's pathetic, but recall that this is in the era where PCs had 640 KB, max, and 1 GB was not only larger than every hard disk (desktop ones were at 10 MB, and even the big enterprise drives were only on order of 10 times bigger), but --- and this was the really important part -- would fill out the virtual address space, so there would be no need for a VM system. Hal Abelson and Gerry Sussman were behind these big ideas (the same duo who wrote Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs). I don't recall if the machine was actually built (maybe it was the Digital Orrery?), but I do recall one of the contrary viewpoints being that VM was considered important not just for simulating a larger memory system, but that for type-driven hardware like Lisp Machines, a huge address space was useful because the upper addressing bits could be used to encode type, even if that address space was too large to ever be populated.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:end of the HDD by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

      IMHO the main advantage of a VM system is that a program doesn't need to care where its memory is located. It can always act as if it just owned all the memory up to some maximum address. The VM takes care of mapping that to the right place.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:end of the HDD by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if you decided to maintain a VM system, the idea of a unified storage system (DRAM+DISK as one device) is pretty fascinating.

      You could theoretically install a program in an already running state. All your programs could be running simultaneously -- "quitting" an application may just be telling the kernel to stop scheduling it; launching it again would mean just scheduling it again to execute, where it would pick up exactly where it left off.

      Obviously a lot of software would have to be rewritten to take advantage of this, but some of the possibilities are fascinating.

    5. Re:end of the HDD by markus_baertschi · · Score: 1
      > Even if you decided to maintain a VM system, the idea of a unified storage system (DRAM+DISK as one device) is pretty fascinating.

      You can buy this from IBM since >20 years. It is called 'System/38', 'AS/400' or 'iSeries'. The system has a flat 64-bit address space and memory essentially serves as cache for disk.

      Markus

    6. Re:end of the HDD by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The downside of this is that software isn't perfect. I know things have gotten WAY better than they used to be, but rebooting a machine is still the way that many applications get back to a 'clean' state. This kind of functionality would no doubt lead to applications still having a 'shutdown' which would be like a disk format of the application's data area.

    7. Re:end of the HDD by swb · · Score: 1

      It's not just massive RAM, there's no need to transfer applications between disk and RAM. Even with a SSD, there's I/O time and the penalty of switching from disk context to RAM to execute or manipulate.

      Sure, today's performance is nothing to sneeze at but you could easily chop 1/3 of your overhead if you had a memory with the speed of RAM and the size & persistence of disk.

    8. Re:end of the HDD by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Are we sure that all types of memory perform equally well? I know it's popular to downplay raw performance these days thanks to the rise of the mobile market and the limit to CPU clock speeds, but all technologies are still binned by performance in one way or another.

      Back when I was in college as a graphic design major, I thought about the opposite situation. Rather than solid state storage, I wondered if it would be possible to have 16 MB of ultra fast memory with tight timings, and a ton of slow, cheap memory, thus allowing more total memory for the money. Somehow, the OS would be designed to prioritize memory usage based on performance, so programs would go in fast memory and file caches and stuff would go into the cheap memory. I asked an actual computer science student about the feasibility of such an idea, and he just looked at me and said, "There's no such thing as cheap memory."

      Later I rationalized that the increased complexity of the chipset/motherboard would negate any advantages, but I was still a bit disappointed by my fellow student's answer. All types of memory vary in price and performance, and I just can't imagine having all my stuff just in the computer's RAM. If anything, there would probably be some kind of supply/demand issue that would force people to continue buying solid-state storage and RAM separately.

    9. Re:end of the HDD by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      don't forget that we currently have that situation today, its the motherboard-based main DRAM that is the slow memory, the fast 'main' memory is the L1, L2 and sometimes L3 caches on the CPU.

      But still, my point is not about having lots of RAM, it's about having everything you own stored in RAM, never being pulled back and forth from the HDD, never having to load files, everything you want is .. just there ready for you.

      the biggest problem with modern computers is the bottleneck of RAM - when you want something you have to push it from A to B, in some cases that's from the HDD into RAM, but other times its pushing it from RAM to CPU cache. This is why your ultra-fast computer always appears to be so slow, it's taking ages pushing huge amounts of data back and forth all the time. Putting everything in RAM would stop that happening. We'd still have the CPU cache problem of course, but it would be somewhat mitigated.

      And yes, I'm sure HDDs would be cheaper so people would buy them for long-term storage. but I'm dreaming of the future :)

    10. Re:end of the HDD by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      don't forget that we currently have that situation today, its the motherboard-based main DRAM that is the slow memory, the fast 'main' memory is the L1, L2 and sometimes L3 caches on the CPU.

      True, but CPU caches are managed exclusively in hardware. Using two different types of main RAM would require the OS to be aware of the performance differences.

      This is why your ultra-fast computer always appears to be so slow, it's taking ages pushing huge amounts of data back and forth all the time.

      That wouldn't be as big a problem if there were a way to cache frequently used library functions, so all the executing code would fit in the CPU cache. Most programs and monolithic libraries are simply too big, and the majority of library functions are simply not used. On principle, I hate depending on a 2+MB library just to do some basic GUI stuff. The shift to web browsers as an OS certainly isn't helping, especially since basic concepts like a "frame buffer" and a "database" are shockingly, amazing new features of HTML5.

      We need better ways to strip away all the redundant code, not stuff the machines full of NV-RAM. The whole concept of how libraries are compiled needs to be rethought.

  11. Got to buy lots of stock! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Man. I was going to put all of my savings into one of the new cold fusion companies that are going to be popping up at the end of the month. Now I'm going to have to split it with all the HP stock I need to buy.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  12. Memristor implication for OS, Software, Energy... by An+dochasac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We can finally dump the multiple layers of caching, look-ahead and other OS complexity designed to hide several orders of magnitude difference between register/DRAM access and persistent storage (tape/Hard drive/core memory...). Operating systems can return to the level of simplicity they had back when everything was uniformity slow. But now everything will be uniformly fast and we'll can focus complexity on multiprocessing.

    It will become practical to implement neural networks in hardware. This will completely change the way we design and program software and databases.

    Persistent and portable user sessions will become the norm. (Look at Sun Ray for an idea of how this works. Sun Ray sessions are typically logged in for months at a time. This means software has to be better behaved but it also means we won't have to rely on user memory to restore a desktop and applications to... now where was I?

  13. Reboot by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I haven't encountered any OS besides z/OS that didn't require a reboot atleast every few weeks in order for the software side to remain stable.
    This includes Windows, Linux, OS-X, Android and iOS. Most likely due to not-quite-perfect applications rather than the OS itself, but they still required an OS reboot.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Reboot by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      I haven't encountered any OS besides z/OS that didn't require a reboot atleast every few weeks in order for the software side to remain stable.

      What, you never had a digital wristwatch, thermostat, or tv remote control? Who are you, and who gave you a /. account?

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    2. Re:Reboot by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The common thread in all these instances is you. What are you doing wrong?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Reboot by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You know you can quit and restart memory hogs like Firefox, right?

    4. Re:Reboot by MikeOttawa · · Score: 1

      I, unfortunately, am an owner of a Harmony remote control from Logitech that often reboots spontaneously - and takes about 2 minutes to "boot up". It also has the annoying habit of "sticking" on a command, and reissuing it over and over and over until you pull out the battery (which is very unfortunate when the "stuck" command is "Volume Up".

    5. Re:Reboot by markus_baertschi · · Score: 1
      I you are doing wrong, then. My Unix and Linux systems need rebooting only because we install a OS update about once a year.

      Markus

    6. Re:Reboot by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Have you upgraded to Lion yet? So far the only thing I've had to reboot for was system updates. Before, the network would eventually go wonky, using my A/V software heavily would end up thrashing the system, etc. Lion seems to repair itself nicely if I just quit the A/V software, and then I can start those up and be back to normal.
      Just a thought.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    7. Re:Reboot by toddestan · · Score: 1

      (you don't have to restart after windows update, you can disable the auto-reboot timeout).

      Windows can't replace files that are open so while you can disable the auto-reboot you're not really patching the system as you're still running with the old versions of DLL files, executables, etc. until you actually reboot the system and let Windows finish replacing those files. With that said, I'm am certainly guilty of neglecting Windows updates for extended periods of time in the interests of not rebooting.

  14. This is a great invention by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Oracle must already by working hard to find out how to make it incompatible with their databases.

  15. Stub writer is stupid by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    s/reboot/cold-boot;

    This will store your system state in memory, meaning you don't need to hibernate.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  16. OS modifications by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

    This, if it ever sees light of a day, will probably need major rethinking of OS architecture. Some things like volatile RAM vs. permanent "files" on "disks" is logic hardcoded into every major OS and framework (java, .NET, C++, ...), not only as a code but as a major architectural constant. With this, everything changes IMHO, not only boot. For example, "files" are completely obsolete, unless we want to emulate with what we know and what we are used to.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:OS modifications by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Suppose you had infinite non-volatile RAM, so you could open as many documents as you want and never have to close or save them.

      You would still want your documents in some sort of organized, searchable, (hierarchical?) format for organizational purposes. By analogy, imagine a desk with infinite surface area. You would still put documents into a filing cabinet because they are easier to find. You would also need this standard storage medium so that other people and other software could get to the document, or so that 2 things could access the file simultaneously.

      You would also need to serialize the data in a standard format for upgrades. Ex: V1 of the software might keep the file in a different in-memory structure than V2. So to upgrade, you would need to write the documents to a standard format and location so that it could reload them.

      You still would have physical storage limitations - suppose they could give you 1TB of memory for $100. That's fine, until you find you have 10TB of video. You still need the ability to copy the data out of memory.

      You also need backups, and a backup using the in-memory format might not work so well.

    2. Re:OS modifications by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're assuming this is cheap as well as nonvolatile.

      We have nonvolatile memory now. It hasn't made hard disks disappear. I bet the new kid isn't going to either.

    3. Re:OS modifications by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Changing people is a lot harder than changing software. Think about it "files" are already a throwback to the old idea of paper files.
      You will still need to move data as well and know what is where.
      Now changing the OS is a given but not as much as you think. We already have disk cache's now. This should allow for an extremely persistent cache and a very low memory sleep state for computers. People are talking about never having to reboot which is more than a bit silly because if you power down the CPU when you bring it back up you still need to initialize the hardware. It will not matter one bit if the memory is static if you do not retrive things like the register states on power up. Using windows terms this could allow a hibernate that seems as fast to recover from as a sleep mode is today. That would be good enough for most people.
      A place where this could be huge is for disk systems. Adding this as cache to a raid controller an or a drive could really improve performance for disk writes.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:OS modifications by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is the piece that everyone seems to be missing. If this stuff costs $100/GB, it isn't going to change much of anything at all.

  17. Tech Advancement by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    "HP’s technology allows the memory layers to be put directly on top of the processor layer making for very fast systems on chip" Interestingly this is exactly what John Carmack stated he was hoping would happen in his last interview. It would make development of new game engine technology that takes full advantage of PC systems much easier.

  18. Ksplice by tepples · · Score: 2

    The structures that require modification are copies of the data on disc, why should that change? Copy these from the non-running programme to private pages, modify the process page table, job done.

    Unless the version of the kernel with security patches is larger than the old version and won't fit in the same pages, or the security patch changes the meaning of a data structure in RAM. Then you need an Oracle product to make the transition.

    1. Re:Ksplice by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Then you need an Oracle product to make the transition.

      Hmmm...using an Oracle product or having to reboot once a month....

      Looks like a win/win for the reboot option.

  19. Won't be in your next Windows or Linux system... by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

    Don't get too excited guys... Apple already locked up anything HP produces with a long term contract. They're even going to build the factory for them! On the bright side, if this technology ever gets cheap enough, Apple will switch to it exclusively, meaning flash prices will come down finally for other vendors. Remember, Apple doesn't like flash.

  20. ADBE by tepples · · Score: 1

    Man. I was going to put all of my savings into one of the new cold fusion companies

    Cold fusion? You could have bought ADBE years ago.

  21. Small enough not to have an OS by tepples · · Score: 1

    I haven't encountered any OS besides z/OS that didn't require a reboot

    What, you never had a digital wristwatch, thermostat, or tv remote control?

    The microcontrollers in such devices don't have an "operating system" distinct from the only application that runs on them.

    1. Re:Small enough not to have an OS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Did the early examples of any of those things even have microcontrollers?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. But can it run Linux? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that. If something has Linux, a file system, and a network connection, it can run Oracle Berkeley DB and Oracle MySQL.

  23. Lose the file concept? You stupid git by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some things like volatile RAM vs. permanent "files" on "disks" is logic hardcoded into every major OS and framework

    For one thing, it's not necessarily as hardcoded as you might think in operating systems that have any concept of of "everything is a file". One can mmap a file as a block of memory, or one can mmap /dev/zero to allocate a block of memory. For another, perhaps you want "files" on "repositories" to be backed up, revision controlled, etc.

    1. Re:Lose the file concept? You stupid git by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      And something like a MTD filesystem would provide that abstraction. Nothing would change much- because it wouldn't need to.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  24. Good by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing too, because it's likely Samsung has been colluding with other NAND Flash manufacturers to keep prices high. They bought up a lot of competitors and the top 3 manufacturers control the vast majority of the market now. The DOJ actually investigated Samsung for collusion in 2007 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/18/nand_flash_antitrust_probe_widens/) but abruptly dropped the case in 2009 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aWgWSqhs_Jk0). Perhaps coincidentally when Obama became president. The main problem with NAND Flash is it's so massively capital intensive that you need $25 billion to construct a new fabrication plant. It's easy for companies like Samsung (which was fined a record $3 billion by the DOJ for colluding with LCD manufacturers to price fix LCD panels) to cheat the market system.

    1. Re:Good by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Prices still haven't dropped below $1/GB being there in 2008. Market concentration is at an all-time high. The iPhone 3GS had 32 GB and the iPhone 4GS at the same price point has... 32 GB. NAND Flash prices are unjustifiably high.

    2. Re:Good by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What if it just costs that much to make 1GB of Flash?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Good by evilWurst · · Score: 2

      Or it could be that demand has grown fast enough to keep pace with growth in supply. This does happen naturally sometimes. The smartphone market has been growing for that entire time, the amount of flash in each phone is been going up, there's also the tablet market and the ebook reader market, the digital camera market, solid state drives for all those Macbook Airs, and so on. This can keep prices high without monopoly or collusion. If the manufacturers know they're guaranteed to sell everything they make at the current price, then it doesn't benefit them to lower their prices.

      If flash fabs didn't cost tens of billions of dollars to make, then yes, we might still be able to argue that manufacturers were colluding to limit production to keep prices high. But due to the expense, they've got a pretty good argument that building new fabs is too risky. Especially since we're bumping up against the reliability limits of flash now; they can't just double density again.

      This is where HP hopes to swoop in with memristor tech and save the day / get rich. They're claiming their test runs are already competitive with flash performance and with better reliability, and that the tech is no where near its limits yet. Theoretically, as soon as they start putting this into production, they'll start grabbing the high end market share, and either the price of flash with crash in response (the fabs are about paid off already, so they have a lot of flexibilty to lower prices) or everyone will license from HP and make memristors.

  25. Re:Won't be in your next Windows or Linux system.. by strack · · Score: 1

    errr.. i think your either trolling, or your confusing adobe flash software with physical flash memory.

  26. Randomly Flashing Red LEDs by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I refuse to believe scientific progress has been made- or that this is an improvement over traditional RAM until I see a room full of randomly flashing LED lights.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  27. Is this still /.? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Would some of you clever (and snarky) types consider the security issues that persistent RAM brings?

    Powering off such a machine leaves it entirely ready to be used, true, but also entirely ready to be examined by whoever lifts it out of your bag at the airport or Starbucks. Freezing and bumping DRAM now is considered a genuine, if rare, security concern. No one talks much about hiberfil security. All of my RAM still loaded, ready to be dissected by whoever cares to physically take it away?

    How long before someone works out a system to mount this RAM elsewhere and peruse it at their leasure?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  28. hp 2013 ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    going by their market cap and the heroics of the hp management, seriously doubt HP will exists in 2013....

  29. What happened to Getting out of hardware? by PenguinJeff · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how the new CEO is yet, but man that was the stupidest crap I ever heard. I am glad they fired his ass and I hope the law suits against him hold true. I'm not one for wishing misfortune up on someone but stock holders should get back what they lost.

  30. Re:Terrible idea by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    One could define secured memory areas to be encrypted or cleared when shutting down.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  31. Re:How is this better than an SSD by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    The first thing they will make with this is SSDs (replacing Flash, remember?)
    So the question of "how is this better than SSDs" doesn't make sense.

    SSD is nonvolatile. However DRAM, which they want to replace next, is volatile.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  32. Re:Won't be in your next Windows or Linux system.. by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

    Or joking... your choice!

  33. Re:Non-volatile RAM! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a nightmare for software design. A reboot is used today to clear up bad glitches in software. How will we be able to do that if rebooting does not reset software that has glitched. Sounds like a catch 22 to a good idea.

    Restart the software?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  34. Re:Memristor implication for OS, Software, Energy. by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

    We can finally dump the multiple layers of caching, look-ahead and other OS complexity

    That sounds unlikely. To replace multiple layers of caching you need to come up with a technology which is not just faster than Flash and faster than DRAM, but also than cache RAM. A tall order for a single new technology.

    Even if that was the case, it would have to have a uniform speed independent of size and process. Otherwise you would surely have Memristor RAMs of different price and speed. So you would again use smaller (and more expensive) Memristor RAMs to cache the bigger (and cheaper) Memristor RAMs.

    It will become practical to implement neural networks in hardware. This will completely change the way we design and program software and databases.

    That's been possible for a long time, slightly faster replacements for RAM and Flash will do basically nothing for that. So I'd get the opposite conclusion: software and databases won't be affected by this in any meaningful way.

    Persistent and portable user sessions will become the norm. (Look at Sun Ray for an idea of how this works. [...])

    Suspend to RAM is already possible, I use it on my desktop Linux machine all the time. Not needing the minimal power required to keep the RAM alive is nice, nothing more. Desktops usually have a connection to power anyway, and portables can keep that mode alive for a very long time. Portability of sessions is not affected by this at all. Sun Rays are just small boxes to run VNC clients on - sessions are portable between clients, but they stay on the very same server. Memristor technology doesn't help with that.

  35. didn't HP want to quit hardware? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    Didn't HP want to put an end to the hardware business and focus on software? Can someone please enlighten me because I'm probably missing something here...

    1. Re:didn't HP want to quit hardware? by blueturffan · · Score: 1

      HP's former CEO made some rather unclear and confusing statements and was subsequently fired. At this point, it is not clear what HP will do with the laptop / desktop business, but everything I've read indicates that they'll remain in hardware (servers, storage, printers, etc.)

    2. Re:didn't HP want to quit hardware? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

      OK! Thanks for the info!
      I was quite disappointed when I read that that announcement. I quite like their hardware and service...

  36. Re:Memristor implication for OS, Software, Energy. by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    Operating systems can return to the level of simplicity they had back when everything was uniformity slow.

    When was that exactly? Only the very earliest, very simple computers didn't have at least two kinds of memory (working memory and storage). And they didn't have an operating system.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  37. Or.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    he's been rooted, and Windows is just pretending to update.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  38. problems to consider by whitroth · · Score: 1

    1. Will they have on-chip hardware mediated encryption (for, say, stolen devices)?
    2. Will there be a setting to force a complete reset (or do you want to have to buy a replacement to
                    get rid of that pesky malware... and given the venal nature of companies, will they deliberately
                    *not* provide that, to increase sales?

                      mark

  39. Ohmigosh by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I sure hope this somehow doesn't put a crimp in Microsoft's plan of intimidating BOIS makers into shutting out F/OSS!

  40. Re:OS modifications - didn't happen for flash by Animats · · Score: 2

    Right now, we have two main models for storage - files and a flat address space. Neither is well suited to flash memory, let alone something like memristors.

    There are other architectures. Burroughs machines from 1960 onward had memory addressing that worked like pathnames. Think of memory addresses as being hierarchical, like "process22/object21/array4[5]". Objects were paged in and out, but were not persistent. The IBM System/38 went further and made such objects persistent. However, such architectures are not compatible with C programming, which assumes that addresses are numbers.

    Flash is usually treated as disk, even though it has an access time that's faster than the time the OS takes to grind through the file system code. Flash is much more of a random access device, but it's seldom supported as one. One possibility would be to support flash memory as a name/value tuple store, like the "non-SQL" databases.

    PC-type architectures still don't have a channel architecture (like IBM mainframes since 1967), where a user program can have non-privileged access to a device without the OS being in the middle. (Channel support means a process can talk to a device directly by sending messages, messages which the device can securely associate with the sending process and its privileges. The device has to maintain security and has the information to do so.) So smart devices that do lots of little fast transactions, like a tuple store or an object store, have to be mediated through the OS. So most OSs are still reading big blocks from flash, then caching them in RAM. That's already limiting, and memristors make it more so.

    The success of C and the UNIX model (which even Windows NT and its successor follow) is based on a vanilla hardware model. That's holding computing back.

  41. Virtual memory by DragonHawk · · Score: 2

    ... so there would be no need for a VM system ... VM was considered important not just for simulating a larger memory system ...

    It's a common misconception (reinforced by several GUIs) that "virtual memory" means "using disk as virtual RAM". That's not accurate.

    Virtual memory means the address a program sees is not the real address in storage. It's translated by the MMU (Memory Management Unit). This lets you do any number of things, only some of which have to do with paging/swapping to disk. In particular, it lets different programs have different views and access of the same storage, which is important for separation of privileges between processes (useful for even single-user systems, and required for practical multi-user systems).

    It would be the case that some of the uses for VM would go away, though. No need for disk swapping/paging. No need for memory mapped disk I/O if you have no disk, either.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  42. Re:Memristor implication for OS, Software, Energy. by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    But now everything will be uniformly fast...

    Unlikely. Bus speed and lengths are already an issue. It doesn't if your storage is uniformly fast if the pipe to the processor can't keep up. The von Neumann bottleneck. Massively parallel, distributed systems would fix this, but people are really bad at thinking about problems that way, so I'm not sure how practical that would be.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  43. NOBODY GETS IT????? by fnj · · Score: 2

    Everybody here is prattling on about whether we can or cannot eliminate reboots by using memristors - completely missing the point of this new technology. We are talking about a 5 nanometer process here! One in which you can build up many layers! One in which parameters can be traded off in various ways to either make a better DRAM than DRAM, a better SRAM than SRAM, or a better flash than flash. The point is not necessarily to replace all of those with a single part. The point is that there is VAST potential to break through barriers. We are talking about a flash replacement with much higher density, lower power, increased endurance, and (speculatively) lower cost. This could be the a damn big breakthrough; a game changer.

  44. Wow, Not 5 Years by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Wow, for once it's not a product (perpetually) 5 years in our future.

    Of course, even a year and a half can make a huge difference. Imagine, if you will, what the market today would look like if AMD's long gestating Bulldozer processor had arrived on the scene 18 months ago. Who knows what else will arrived by then.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  45. That would be insider trading by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    In fact, this could be interesting for the regulators.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  46. Re:Memristor implication for OS, Software, Energy. by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Sounds good in theory. I bet even then though, Microsoft will still find a reason to have a giant disk-thrashing pagefile.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  47. Disk Encryption vs. Hibernation by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the version of disk encryption that my corporate IT department uses on my work laptop means that the hibernation system doesn't work. I can still suspend the laptop (which on a Dell means that it sleeps for maybe an hour, then decides that it's gotten too hot keeping the memory awake inside my laptop bag, so it wakes up the OS and turns on the fan, burning the rest of the battery by trying to cool itself inside the bag.) It's Windows XP, and I think the disk encryption software is from Checkpoint. Does anybody know if there are laptop bags that have enough mesh for ventilation while still providing good padding?

    Other than for electricity-related reasons, the main times my laptop gets rebooted are Microsoft Windows Patch Tuesdays, or sometimes when other critical application updates come out that insist on rebooting. On the other hand, my virtual machines get rebooted a good bit more often - that's sort of the point :-)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Disk Encryption vs. Hibernation by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      "It's Windows XP" Well that's your problem. I know tuxonice will resume from dm-crypt partitions if you run use a initram kernel.

  48. Say goodbye by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    With completely new memory technology, say goodbye to the justly-hated RAMBUS and their patent-trolling stifling of the DRAM industry. Good riddance.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  49. a LOT more than just "a replacement for flash" by eyenot · · Score: 1

    some indications point to memristor as good for a new sort of processor.

    from wikipedia:

    "HP prototyped a crossbar latch memory using the devices that can fit 100 gigabits in a square centimeter,[5] and has designed a highly scalable 3D design (consisting of up to 1000 layers or 1 petabit per cm3).[citation needed] HP has reported that its version of the memristor is currently about one-tenth the speed of DRAM.[36] The devices' resistance would be read with alternating current so that the stored value would not be affected.[37]"

    100 gigabits in a square centimeter. I also read that these memristor beds are easily stacked into cubic "chips" without consequence. Wouldn't that mean E+9*9 or E+81 bits of storage per cubic centimeter?

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:a LOT more than just "a replacement for flash" by eyenot · · Score: 1

      oh, it's right in the quote. 1 petabit/cm^3 so it's E+9+3, not E+9*x. But STILL! A petabit on a keychain.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  50. sex != crutch by epine · · Score: 1

    No need for memory mapped disk I/O if you have no disk, either.

    I don't think you thought that comment through. Which is funny, because you were busy unbundling what VM brings to the table.

    Here's a case study. Two processes open the same file for writing, one of them is actively writing, while the other appears to be lurking with nothing to say. Copy-on-write is a fundamental technique for detecting write contention; best of all, detecting when write contention never actually happens. You need the ability to establish many-to-one mappings, to mark the mappings with permitted access modes (read, read/write), and the ability to trap on an access fault. COW permits a lazy fork, which is why Unix was the right answer (management at the process level), and NT wasn't (management at the thread level), to overstate by a factor of about a million, but true nevertheless.

    It's possible that the OS might choose to mark some pages inaccessible in order to use access faults as a signal to help it manage physical memory locality. In fact, I'd be shocked if the technique is not already widely used, if not so much in J Random Desktop. Or did you also assume that gobs of MRAM would be on a single IO interface of a single core, forever and ever?

    It seems most people encode in their mental maps that VM is the technology which fails to completely hide the fact that disk heads are the continental drift of electronic data access. When my leg heals, we throw the crutch away. VM == crutch.

    You do pay a price in power consumption for the TLB lookup mechanism on every memory access. Probably get a lot of that back in the memory activity averted by COW semantics. Unless MRAM supports local page duplication, which isn't a crazy idea, given the likely width of the row access bus. But this idea never seems to survive DRAM commodity economics.

    You get even more back by the billion emails your system doesn't end up sending because the TLB lookup was busy checking page execute privs, but 99.99% of people won't correctly attribute the systems theory effect to the musty deterrent so it will be another psychological no-op. What do we need Shelob for? No-one has gone through that tunnel in 1000 years.

    Your call. It's funny how people so quickly presume that a technique associated with managing a point of pain exists only for that one reason. Many biologists proclaim (for dramatic effect or otherwise) that sex is an aberration that should never have occurred, since it's so much more convenient to go it alone. But the average person concludes that sex != crutch (with little true analysis), so I guess we're keeping that one, even if MRAM prevails.

  51. that won't change as long as mass storage exists by Chirs · · Score: 1

    As long as we have spinning platter drives, tape drives, etc. there will still be the concept of permanent files on disks.

    Besides, I think the concept of files still has benefits for passing self-contained discrete chunks of data around between devices.

  52. Why is a raven like a writing desk? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if that was a proper reply or just a stream of consciousness. :)

    My only point with "memory mapped disk I/O" is that one of the uses of VM is to abstract disk I/O into regular memory accesses. Program just accesses memory, but the MMU and OS turn that into disk I/O calls behind the screens. If you don't have a disk, and instead just have one big RAM (or one big NUMA), you don't need to do that because there's no disk I/O calls to be translated to. Of course VM is still useful for other things; indeed that was my point, and I said as much.

    Beyond that, I can't speak to Shelob or pop psychology or evolutionary models, but I don't think I can find them on the address bus anyway. :)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  53. Three questions to be answered by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    1. Are they faster than existing flash memory?
    2. Do they consume less power to make it advantageous.
    3 Are they going to be less expensive?

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  54. Re:Terrible idea by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

    Or zero all memory used by a process when it terminates. Your tax returns are safe as soon as you close your spreadsheet program. If it became standard practice, it would also obviate the need for zany emergency-power-off-in-case-of-raid schemes.

  55. Re:OS modifications - didn't happen for flash by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I do not know if memreistors have the same limitations as flash does. Things like page based writes and such make flash more disk like than memory like. however some systems like PalmOS used Flash more like ROM than a disk. So if it does work more like RAM then I say that cacheing and such will be the way to use it.

    Everything else you talk about leads to one problem. It becomes very much tied to hardware. This can be a good thing in that you can get better performance but it makes moving forward much more difficult.
    Using a vanilla model allows for easy porting of the OS and software to new hardware. I do not think we are holding computing back that much. I admit that am not happy with the cycle of Yet Another Unix that we seem to be in. Several OSs that had a lot of promise have faded like BeOS and even VMS but in some ways it is like the airliner industry. All new airliners are tubes with swept wings and engines mounted belwo the wings. The reason why is simple. It is the best platform for the job. That doesn't make it any less boring.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.