A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage (alternative)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New hard disk architectures



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 16th 05, 06:16 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

Neither flash+HDD...

The issue is in saving RAM state, and the on-drive flash won't help much.

"Keith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:31:51 -0500, daytripper wrote:


THe hybernate file isn't kept up-to-date. It takes time to hybernate
(maybe even 30sec with 2GB of RAM ;-). Kick the plug out and you *won't*
go back to where you were.

--
Keith


  #12  
Old December 16th 05, 01:53 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

On 15 Dec 2005 13:34:00 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

Well, actually, that's one of the things they were talking about,
integrated flash on the motherboard vs. in the drive. Also they're
figuring out whether to go with NOR or NAND. NOR would be easy to
integrate, NAND would be cheap but a little more finicky to program.


Two different initiatives though: the HDD mfrs are trying to extend the
life of rotating platter systems; Intel's Robson is a fast startup
"technology" http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123053,00.asp.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
  #13  
Old December 16th 05, 03:49 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:00:15 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:31:51 -0500, daytripper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:25:50 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can
wrote:

It would allow an even deeper level of coma than 'Hibernation' I guess
.. you could turn the power off or pull the wall plug and still resume
where you left off.


You can do that with a five year old peecee and an even older hard drive.
Hibernate doesn't depend on any circuitry maintaining state, it's a boot-time
function that loads the current hiberfil.sys file if it is valid...


THe hybernate file isn't kept up-to-date. It takes time to hybernate
(maybe even 30sec with 2GB of RAM ;-). Kick the plug out and you *won't*
go back to where you were.


Because that very hiberfil.sys *is* being updated, and until it has completed
successfully, the hiberfil.sys *is not* up to date. But that isn't the point.

The point is there is no requirement for any level of system power to maintain
state to allow a system to come back from hibernation.

Once a system has successfully created the hiberfil.sys and shut down, you can
kick the plug all you like, but when you finally get tired of that and plug it
back in and hit the power switch, the system should successfully return from
hibernation.

Thus flash (on-drive or elsewhere) really doesn't offer any additional benefit
wrt hibernation (or standby, for that matter).

Further, it's a bit dubious to believe what should be a spiral write to disk
is going to go any faster to a chunk of flash memory located on the drive...

/daytripper
  #14  
Old December 16th 05, 04:40 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:00:15 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:31:51 -0500, daytripper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:25:50 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can
wrote:

It would allow an even deeper level of coma than 'Hibernation' I guess
.. you could turn the power off or pull the wall plug and still resume
where you left off.

You can do that with a five year old peecee and an even older hard drive.
Hibernate doesn't depend on any circuitry maintaining state, it's a boot-time
function that loads the current hiberfil.sys file if it is valid...


THe hybernate file isn't kept up-to-date. It takes time to hybernate
(maybe even 30sec with 2GB of RAM ;-). Kick the plug out and you *won't*
go back to where you were.


Because that very hiberfil.sys *is* being updated, and until it has completed
successfully, the hiberfil.sys *is not* up to date. But that isn't the point.


But you *cannot* just turn power off or pull the plug at any time
and expect to have the filesystem in tact.

The point is there is no requirement for any level of system power to maintain
state to allow a system to come back from hibernation.


.....if it's shut down after hibernation is complete.

Once a system has successfully created the hiberfil.sys and shut down, you can
kick the plug all you like, but when you finally get tired of that and plug it
back in and hit the power switch, the system should successfully return from
hibernation.


Sure, but that's hardly the point.

Thus flash (on-drive or elsewhere) really doesn't offer any additional benefit
wrt hibernation (or standby, for that matter).


....which was my point.

Further, it's a bit dubious to believe what should be a spiral write to disk
is going to go any faster to a chunk of flash memory located on the drive...


Well, M$ does seem to have a problem with that "spiral write", but
I don't think flash would help them out.

--
Keith
  #15  
Old December 16th 05, 05:04 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:40:40 -0500, Keith wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:00:15 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:31:51 -0500, daytripper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:25:50 +0000, GSV Three Minds in a Can
wrote:

It would allow an even deeper level of coma than 'Hibernation' I guess
.. you could turn the power off or pull the wall plug and still resume
where you left off.

You can do that with a five year old peecee and an even older hard drive.
Hibernate doesn't depend on any circuitry maintaining state, it's a boot-time
function that loads the current hiberfil.sys file if it is valid...

THe hybernate file isn't kept up-to-date. It takes time to hybernate
(maybe even 30sec with 2GB of RAM ;-). Kick the plug out and you *won't*
go back to where you were.


Because that very hiberfil.sys *is* being updated, and until it has completed
successfully, the hiberfil.sys *is not* up to date. But that isn't the point.


But you *cannot* just turn power off or pull the plug at any time
and expect to have the filesystem in tact.

The point is there is no requirement for any level of system power to maintain
state to allow a system to come back from hibernation.


....if it's shut down after hibernation is complete.

Once a system has successfully created the hiberfil.sys and shut down, you can
kick the plug all you like, but when you finally get tired of that and plug it
back in and hit the power switch, the system should successfully return from
hibernation.


Sure, but that's hardly the point.


If you go back to the statement I'm arguing, of course this is the point.

I believe you're freely associating Hibernation with some methodology to
survive and recover from sudden loss of system power. This has not been
proposed in this thread, as the scope of any solution that doesn't include
alternate power sourcing (eg: battery) would require system-wide recovery
state being maintained, if not in "real time" at the very least as
checkpoints, which would not only degrade peak system performance to varying
degrees, but would probably be incompatible with current non-volatile
components.

Hibernation is the result of an intentional act - whether inspired by a button
push or as the result of a UPS demanding it. If you want to argue that a
system can crash in the middle of hibernation, well, fine, but that has
nothing to do with this particular discussion, which, again, is whether
maintaining state with power is required to support Hibernation...

Cheers

/daytripper
  #16  
Old December 16th 05, 10:02 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips daytripper wrote:
Because that very hiberfil.sys *is* being updated, and until it has completed
successfully, the hiberfil.sys *is not* up to date. But that isn't the point.


Why does "up to date" matter? Does it need to be within the
last 17ms of an AC cycle? For many PC purposes, a _consistant_
image for 15 seconds ago would do.

Once a system has successfully created the hiberfil.sys and shut
down, you can kick the plug all you like, but when you finally
get tired of that and plug it back in and hit the power switch,
the system should successfully return from hibernation.


Actually, I was more brutal while testing FreeBSD: I kicked
the plug towards the end of kernel compiles. In 3 out of 4
trials, the compile restarted cleanly, taking a combined 30
sec longer. Once it had to be restarted from scratch. In no
case was the filesystem damaged, thanks to Kirk McCusack's
SoftUpdates (essentially carefully ordered disk writes).

-- Robert

  #17  
Old December 16th 05, 10:24 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

Wouldn't it raise the cost of a Motherboard considerably?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
YKhan wrote:

Well, actually, that's one of the things they were talking
about, integrated flash on the motherboard vs. in the drive.


Yeah, I read the article. I was commenting on your subject line.

Not convinced for most desktop systems tho, even on the motherboard.

Could be useful in laptops.

Also they're figuring out whether to go with NOR or NAND.
NOR would be easy to integrate, NAND would be cheap
but a little more finicky to program.





  #19  
Old December 16th 05, 10:42 PM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:02:02 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips daytripper wrote:
Because that very hiberfil.sys *is* being updated, and until it has completed
successfully, the hiberfil.sys *is not* up to date. But that isn't the point.


Why does "up to date" matter? Does it need to be within the
last 17ms of an AC cycle? For many PC purposes, a _consistant_
image for 15 seconds ago would do.


Ok, but how much of your system's performance are you willing to give up?

Again, you're taking a "Green PC" function, primarily intended to save power
while cutting boot time, and trying to feature-creep it up to the level of
power-fail state recovery. Recovery of any type is not what Hibernate was
intended to solve, and the memory dump to disk only happens when an entry into
Hibernate is requested - there's no attempt to keep the image up to date while
you're chugging along, in the event the mains collapse.

In the realm of availability features such as you were thinking of, there are
plenty of checkpointing methods with various types of commit strategies
executed across many different transports based on all kinds of patents. What
you still end up with is a hard problem that hasn't been solved very
effectively...

Cheers

/daytripper
  #20  
Old December 17th 05, 01:49 AM posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default New hard disk architectures

Arno Wagner wrote:
This has been around for some time. The flash does not really help,
unless you write very littel to disk. Personally I think SRAM
and batteries are a better choice, also because flash has relatively
low number of write cycles before it breaks. Not so bad with a disk
mapped 1:1 to flash (e.g. because it is entirely flash), but a serious
problem if a small flash has to buffer all writes to a large disk.
Maybe they are just trtying to create disks that break after 2
years or so...
Note that SRAM+battery has been around for at least a deacde in more
expensive RAID controllers, so the basic idea is old.


I don't think they're talking about using flash in the sense of a
dynamic disk cache, but as a static disk cache, or a ramdisk in other
words. Namely, they're aiming to cache the boot sequence into the
flashdisk to speed up boot times.

As to 4096 Byte sectors, I frankly do not see the point. Multi-sector
transfer stream more than 512 bytes on one go already. Clustering also
provides the possibility to use larger than 512Byte as allocatioon
unit.


Well, they explained it in article, they're saying that the reason this
is needed is because with only 512 bytes you don't have enough bits for
error correcting code with today's big hard disks.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hard Disk Drive Not Found [email protected] Dell Computers 13 August 10th 05 12:03 AM
how to test psu and reset to cmos to default Tanya General 23 February 7th 05 10:56 AM
Cannot boot from secondary hard disk (bios setup) Ian Compaq Computers 1 January 5th 05 11:13 PM
Primary Hard Disk Drive 1 Not Found brandon General Hardware 5 July 18th 04 11:39 PM
primary master hard disk fail berthold Storage (alternative) 5 May 15th 04 03:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.