h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Consider an enterprise level computer network, with
dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of
computers
networked together. Each of these computers has a
given amount of RAM, and when that memory is full it
turns
to the rather slow virtual memory system to fill the
demand, causing
performance to drop quite rapidly.
But with
Ethernet and fibre channel speeds already in the
10gbps range, and poised to go even higher, memory
swapping
need no longer be limited by the relatively pokey
hard drive interface.
In its simplest form, this idea could be implemented
as a server with a large amount of RAM, and a fast
connection to all of the computers on the network.
Individual computers could request swap space on the
server, and while it wouldn't be quite as fast as
native RAM, it should be a substantial improvement
over caching
to a hard drive.
But for every computer requiring more RAM than it
has available, there are likely several others that
aren't making use of the memory they have. The
server could then itself swap out the contents of its
own
memory to other computers on the network. In
essence, the entire pool of RAM installed in all of the
computers
on the network becomes available to use as swap
space.
Of course, networks are inherently unreliable, so it
would require some clever data management to keep
the
engineering workstation designing the critical part
under a tight deadline from crashing when the
secretary
reboots the damn office PC because Word keeps
printing garbage. To that end, individual computers
would also
be responsible for caching memory locally, in case
the pages they want no longer exist on the network
for some
reason when they go back to retrieve them.
Although this might seem to negate the performance
benefits of this
system, it wouldn't really be an issue as long as
memory is constantly being cached in the background
while other
applications are running.
However, this doesn't help much when more active
memory is requested than is currently available on
the
local computer, either because it's all in use or
because the system hasn't had a chance to cache the
unused pages
yet. In that case, the computer could make a special
request to the swap server, essentially saying "I need
memory RIGHT NOW. Here's a page of memory, but
just hold on to it for a bit because I'll want it back
very soon."
With such a request, the server won't farm out the
page to any other computers on the network, but will
retain it
instead in its own memory. In this way, the
computer doesn't have to bother with caching it
locally, because it
can expect with a high degree of certainty that the
page will still be available when needed. However,
it's
expected that the computer will ask for the page
back as soon as possible, and so there's an upper limit
on how
much memory the server will allow to be stored this
way.
Since RAM tends to be the limiting factor in
performancefar more these days than processor
speed, hard drive
space, or any other specificationhaving such a
system in place could extend the useful life of
practically every
computer on the network. The money saved by not
upgrading hardware as often could then be put into
upgrading the network, which would in turn improve
the performance of all of the individual computers.
[link]
|
|
Distributed processing is by no means a new concept. |
|
|
It's not the hardware; it's getting the operating system right to make efficient use of distributed resources. |
|
|
//Widely Known To Exist// err... cache-clustering ? never heard of it. |
|
|
The OS of course would have to be able to differentiate between recovery data and "live" data. |
|
|
This sort of thing was experimented with when Transputers first came out. |
|
|
It doesn't really matter whether the OS shares the tasks, the memory containing the tasks, or both. The trick is to handle the swaps efficiently. |
|
|
The Meiko Computing Surface was a good attempt at that. <link> |
|
|
It's all about moving away from the classic Von Neumann architecture. |
|
|
// RAM tends to be the limiting factor in performance // |
|
|
No, the OS and the apps are the "limiting factor". Try running Native DOS 3.3 on a Pentium 4 ... quite quick. Of course it can't make use of the huge amounts of RAM now available, or your SATA 1Tb HDD. But the point is that a lot of the Mips on modern pc's are sucked up by non-user tasks within the OS, plus the pretty-pretty UI. |
|
|
OSs from some Well Known Major Vendors are best described as "bloatware" compared to their predecessors. Yes, Bill, you. We're looking at you. See that effigy on the top of the bonfire ... ? |
|
|
PCs actually have plenty of "grunt" available for number crunching if you don't piss it away on lapse/dissolve window transitions ... |
|
|
<end of unintended but relevant rant> |
|
|
//It's all about moving away from the classic Von Neumann architecture// I'm pretty sure the transputer was a von Neumann architecture device. Sure as Hell wasn't Harvard. {scuttles off to find old Inmos manuals} |
|
|
// No, the OS and the apps are the "limiting factor". Try
running Native DOS 3.3 on a Pentium 4 ... quite quick.
// |
|
|
Sure, but try getting, say, Firefox to run on DOS. |
|
|
Yes, software does tend to get progressively more
bloated with time. This is inevitable, since as more
resources become generally available software
developers will naturally take advantage of them, either
to expand the feature set or simply out of an
unwillingness or inability to optimize. |
|
|
The net result is that as you add new programs, or even
just if you upgrade your software on a regular basis,
your system will tend to use more memory over time.
And once you hit the ceiling, and have to rely on virtual
memory regularly, your system will slow to a crawl for
general usage. And even though you may have a ton of
free hard drive space and you never come close to
utilizing the full capacity of your processor, if you can't
put more RAM in the system you're basically stuck and
have to replace it with a new one. |
|
|
So, should software be more efficient and less bloated?
That's strictly an academic debate, because in the real
world it won't happen for the foreseeable future. We
just have to accept that reality and deal with it
somehow. |
|
|
... easiest implementation may be ReadyBoost but on
a network ram drive. Good idea [+]
I wonder if you can ask windows to do that now: use
network drive for ReadyBoost. If you could, then
this is trivial to bake. Just share a RAM drive and
you're set. |
|
|
... you know what? ... This will be easy after all:
1) get linux machine A
2) get linux machine B
3) on machine A: make /dev/shm available on the
network
4) on machine B: mount that drive
5) done!
... only thing left is to figure out redundancy
otherwise if A crashes it will take B down
along with it.
I'm not on a 1 Gbs network to try this in RL ... but
I would sure love to see some benchmarks |
|
|
Quote from the early-90's: |
|
|
"You can't handle the truth !" |
|
|
(Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men) |
|
|
// try getting, say, Firefox to run on DOS // |
|
|
Try writing a self-contained windowing web browser to run on an minimal small footprint OS ? |
|
|
... said Bill Gates, as he reclined on his couch stuffed with thousand-dollar bills ... |
|
|
// an unwillingness or inability to optimize // |
|
|
Time for a purge. Spare not even the children, lest the evil persist. |
|
|
// if you can't put more RAM in the system you're basically stuck and have to replace it with a new one // |
|
|
Awesome. You say that like you actually believe it. |
|
|
// should software be more efficient and less bloated // |
|
|
Is that a trick question ? |
|
|
// We just have to accept that reality and deal with it somehow // |
|
|
See above, particularly the bit about not sparing the children ... |
|
|
// Try writing a self-contained windowing web
browser to run on an minimal small footprint OS ? // |
|
|
Not what I said, but sure. Go for it. Why aren't you
using DOS and writing all your own applications?
Nobody's stopping you. The rest of us will just keep
using our bloated, inefficient software to actually get
stuff done. |
|
|
// Awesome. You say that like you actually believe it.
// |
|
|
If I need to run programs X, Y, and Z simultaneously, and
the sum total of memory required to run those programs
efficiently is more than my computer supports, what
else do you propose I do? |
|
| |