I'm sure you've all read about this:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...CA6285751.html. My
bet is that Intel has something cooking with their "Robson technology"
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123053,00.asp for fast boot-up,
which it seems might appear in notebooks first. Since this NAND flash is
limited in size it has to be a semi-permanent cache to the hard disk files
so I'm wondering what they store there and how they decide? I don't see
how they implement it without some specific action programmed into the OS

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> I'm sure you've all read about this:
> http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...CA6285751.html. My
> bet is that Intel has something cooking with their "Robson technology"
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123053,00.asp for fast boot-up,
> which it seems might appear in notebooks first. Since this NAND flash is
> limited in size it has to be a semi-permanent cache to the hard disk files
> so I'm wondering what they store there and how they decide? I don't see
> how they implement it without some specific action programmed into the OS
>

How exactly is NAND flash supposed to be faster than hard disk? I
understood its bandwidth is less than most hard disks? However, I'm sure
it's latency is much better.

Yousuf Khan

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> How exactly is NAND flash supposed to be faster than hard disk? I
> understood its bandwidth is less than most hard disks? However, I'm sure
> it's latency is much better.

multi channel I/O, kinda like a raid perfect solution - fast transfer
and small latency

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave

hackbox.info wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> How exactly is NAND flash supposed to be faster than hard disk? I
>> understood its bandwidth is less than most hard disks? However, I'm
>> sure it's latency is much better.
>
>
> multi channel I/O, kinda like a raid perfect solution - fast
> transfer and small latency
>

Yeah, didn't think of that.

Yousuf Khan

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:24:19 +0100, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> hackbox.info wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> How exactly is NAND flash supposed to be faster than hard disk? I
>>> understood its bandwidth is less than most hard disks? However, I'm
>>> sure it's latency is much better.
>> multi channel I/O, kinda like a raid perfect solution - fast
>> transfer and small latency
>>
>
> Yeah, didn't think of that.

judging by the usb flash disk speeds no one did until recently

--
I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on
it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.
the penguins are psychotic / just smile and wave