Re: Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- From: "Jared Hulbert" <jaredeh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:14:12 -0700
the alternate technologies that I have heard about are either _far_ less
dense then DRAM (similar to static ram) or require erasing in blocks
(similar to flash).
I will agree with this.
niether one is appropriate for a large, flat addressed
memory architecture as you list below.
I don't agree with this one. Erase blocks don't automatically
disqualify a memory as a fit into a flat addressed arch. You need to
play games at the memory management layer to make it work, but it's
not impossible.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- From: Rick van Rein
- Re: Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- From: david
- Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] console - Add configurable support for console charset translation
- Next by Date: Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)
- Previous by thread: Re: Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- Next by thread: Re: Future Linux on Bistable Storage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|