Shawn Rutledge <[email protected]> wrote: > I’ve been wondering why it’s still so rare to map persistent storage > to memory addresses, in hardware. It seemed like Intel Optane was > going to go there, for a while, then they just gave up on the idea.
Because Intel doesn't understand any kind of product except CPUs. :-( > I think universal memory should happen eventually; and to prepare for > that, software design should go towards organizing data the same in > memory as on storage: better packing rather than lots of randomness in > the heap, and memory-aligned structures. Local file I/O might become > mostly unnecessary, but could continue as an abstraction to organize > things in memory, at the cost of having to keep writing I/O code. So if > that’s where we are going, mmap is a good thing to have. But yeah, > maybe it’s more hassle as an abstraction for network-attached storage. A web search shows that there are several options for peristent memory allocators, many of which I didn't know about. However, gawk has been using one for a few years. See https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643886 and https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~tpkelly/pma/. It's built on top of mmap() and only for 64-bit *nix systems. For the short instructions on using it, see https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/html_node/Persistent-Memory.html. For more details, see https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/pm-gawk/pm-gawk.html. Arnold ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T84cf4042bdd1a74b-M153c99a3b6b8ac59c01977f5 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
