PC Review
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
Processors
Intel Micron NAND flash alliance
Forums
Newsgroups
Hardware
Processors
Intel Micron NAND flash alliance
![]() |
Intel Micron NAND flash alliance |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm sure you've all read about this:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/ele.../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 |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
George Macdonald wrote:
> I'm sure you've all read about this: > http://www.reed-electronics.com/ele.../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 |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> 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 transferand 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 |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hackbox.info wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> 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 |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:24:19 +0100, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> hackbox.info wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:16:07 +0100, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> 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 |
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Rate This Thread | |
|
|

Main Page 

perfect solution - fast transfer
