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..).
>>
>>

Reply via email to