On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:17:32 AM UTC, cdm wrote: > > > do you have traditional main memory RAM in mind here ... ? >
Yes (how big arrays people are working with; but also if bigger files, how big), and no: > with flash memory facilitating tremendous advances > in (near) in-memory processing, the lines between > traditional RAM and flash memory have become > considerably blurred. > I know, and the distinction will I guess disappear in the future (but yes, I'm thinking what you need to address, as RAM or looks like, including virtual memory) at least with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistive_random-access_memory [already available] etc. I'm thinking how big do pointers need to be, e.g. 64-bit seems to be overkill.. or should I say indexes into arrays need not be. Yes, there's also memory mapped I/O. We had 64-bit file systems before 64-bit [x86] CPUs, so bitness of CPU doesn't (didn't, yes better(?) fro memory mapped I/O..) have to align with big files (and we already have 128-bit ZFS is 278 but individual files are still limited to 64-bit). > > ~ cdm > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:23:58 PM UTC-7, Páll Haraldsson wrote: >> >> >> I'm most concerned, about how much needs to fit in *RAM*, and curious >> what is considered big, in RAM (or not..). >> >>
