> On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:51 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 16, 2018, at 10:40 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/16/18 11:21 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> If you simply want non-volatile memory, the obvious answer is SRAM with
>>> battery backup and a small FPGA to do the interfacing.
>>
>> I proposed nvRAM - CMOS SRAM backed by cell-for-cell flash. Loads SRAM
>> from flash on power-up and stores into flash at power-down. All that's
>> needed is a capacitor to extend the power-down cycle a bit.
>>
>> Very fast, available in 8 to 32-bit wide architectures, up to 16Mbit per
>> package.
>>
>> Claims to be guaranteed for 1M power cycles and doesn't require a battery.
>
> Except it is *much* more expensive than MRAM. 32x8 NVSRAM is $18.50 in qty 1
> from Digikey.
> A 64Kx16 MRAM is $11.84 in qty 1 from Digikey. MRAM requires no additional
> circuitry so that
> also reduces the overall cost (and has unlimited write endurance).
>
> If it sounds like I’m harping on MRAM, maybe I am. I’ve looked at the
> various technologies in
> detail (what’s available, cost, interfacing, etc, etc) for years and for
> anything that requires
> non-volatility, MRAM wins until you get into seriously large sizes at which
> point you need to
> go to FLASH for economics.
I'll go along with that. I worked on a storage product that needed
non-volatile memory in modest sizes for tracking transaction states. The first
product used FRAM for that, the second used SRAM backed by a small battery
("coin cell") and the third used MRAM. All worked fine. FRAM supposedly has
endurance limits but they are high enough they weren't a concern. The main
issue was the size limits, at least at the time (2003-ish).
For simplicity, battery backed SRAM should be just as good as SRAM. In any
case, you presumably will need a CPLD or small FPGA for the interface protocol
conversion.
paul
