Brian Aker wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I will riddle you back!
>
> On Nov 4, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Jim Starkey wrote:
>
>> Cheap servers (quad core Intel) can send 39,.000 messages through a
>> switch per second without breaking a sweat (measured between WinXP
>> and 64 bit Linux both running Q9450 quad-core Intel processors @ 2.66
>> GHz). A disk with an average access time of 6 milliseconds can
>> sustain 166 operations per second.
>>
>> What does this suggest about the future of database systems built
>> around disks?
>
> If memory that is attached attached the processor is no longer
> volatile how ludicrous is it to develop using a paradigm of "disk" and
> "main memory"?
>
Not ludicrous at all. Let's see:
1. Redundancy for availability
2. Redundancy for scalability
3. Redundancy for disaster recovery
4. Data doesn't fit in available non-volatile memory
5. Ability to reconstruct prior state (requires vast memory)
Memory hierarchies have been with us from the dawn of computing. The
classical version is:
1. CPU registers
2. Cache memory
3. Main memory
4. Disk
A more enlightened version:
1. CPU registers
2. Cache memory
3. Main memory
4. Other main memory in the cloud
5. Archival disk somewhere in the cloud
--
Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376
