Wes Felter wrote:
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4 at 16:43, Wes Felter wrote:
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
I am not convinced that a general purpose CPU, running other software
in parallel, will be able to be timely and responsive enough to
maximize bandwidth in an SSD controller without specia
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4 at 16:43, Wes Felter wrote:
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
I am not convinced that a general purpose CPU, running other software
in parallel, will be able to be timely and responsive enough to
maximize bandwidth in an SSD controller without specialized hardware
supp
Juergen Nickelsen wrote:
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
> > The netapps patents contain claims on ideas that I invented for my Diploma
> > thesis work between 1989 and 1991, so the netapps patents only describe
> > prior
> > art. The new ideas introduced with
600? I've heard 1.5GBps reported.
On 1/5/10, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4 at 16:43, Wes Felter wrote:
>>Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>>
>>>I am not convinced that a general purpose CPU, running other software
>>>in parallel, will be able to be timely and responsive enough to
>>>maximize bandwi
On Mon, Jan 4 at 16:43, Wes Felter wrote:
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
I am not convinced that a general purpose CPU, running other software
in parallel, will be able to be timely and responsive enough to
maximize bandwidth in an SSD controller without specialized hardware
support.
Fusion-io would
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
I am not convinced that a general purpose CPU, running other software
in parallel, will be able to be timely and responsive enough to
maximize bandwidth in an SSD controller without specialized hardware
support.
Fusion-io would seem to be a counter-example, since it use
Since there's nothing I love better on a Sunday than a religious OT
discussion:
On January 2, 2010 8:51:25 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote:
On Saturday, January 2, 2010, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
Hardly any Apple users are complaining about the advanced filesytem they
have already.
That's a joke right
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> The netapps patents contain claims on ideas that I invented for my Diploma
> thesis work between 1989 and 1991, so the netapps patents only describe prior
> art. The new ideas introduced with "wofs" include the ideas on how to use CO
Tim Cook wrote:
> On Saturday, January 2, 2010, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, David Magda wrote:
> >
> >
> > Apple is (sadly?) probably developing their own new file system as well.
> >
> >
> > I assume that you are talking about developing a filesystem design more
> > suitab
David Magda wrote:
> Apple is (sadly?) probably developing their own new file system as well.
Well, I still don't understand Apple. Apple likes to get a grant for an
indemnification for something that cannot happen in a country with a proper
law system.
The netapps patents contain claims on
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:45 PM, David Magda wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2010, at 20:51, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> Apple users not complaining is more proof of them having
>> not only drunk the koolaid but also bathed in it than them knowing any
>> lImtations of what they have today. This coming from someone w
On Jan 2, 2010, at 20:51, Tim Cook wrote:
Apple users not complaining is more proof of them having
not only drunk the koolaid but also bathed in it than them knowing any
lImtations of what they have today. This coming from someone with a
MacBook pro sitting in the other room.
Apple users not
On Saturday, January 2, 2010, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, David Magda wrote:
>
>
> Apple is (sadly?) probably developing their own new file system as well.
>
>
> I assume that you are talking about developing a filesystem design more
> suitable for the iNetbook and the iPhone?
>
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, David Magda wrote:
Apple is (sadly?) probably developing their own new file system as well.
I assume that you are talking about developing a filesystem design
more suitable for the iNetbook and the iPhone?
Hardly any Apple users are complaining about the advanced filesyt
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
>>
>> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote:
>>>
Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller
that Seagate will use in its upcomi
On Jan 2, 2010, at 19:44, Erik Trimble wrote:
I do think the market is slight larger: Hitachi and EMC storage
arrays/big SAN controllers, plus all Linux boxes once Brtfs
actually matures enough to be usable. I don't see MSFT making any
NTFS changes to help here, but they are doing some r
Tim Cook wrote:
While I'm sure to offend someone, it must be stated. That's not going
to happen for the simple fact that there's all of two vendors that
could utilize it, both niche (in relative terms). NetApp and Sun.
Why would SSD MFG's waste their time building drives to sell for less
m
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote:
>>
>> Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller
>>> that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs:
>>>
>>> http://anandtech.com/storage/s
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1 at 21:21, Erik Trimble wrote:
That all said, it certainly would be really nice to get a SSD
controller which can really push the bandwidth, and the only way I
see this happening now is to go the "stupid" route, and dumb down the
controller as much as possib
On Fri, Jan 1 at 21:21, Erik Trimble wrote:
That all said, it certainly would be really nice to get a SSD
controller which can really push the bandwidth, and the only way I
see this happening now is to go the "stupid" route, and dumb down the
controller as much as possible. I really think we
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Maybe it's approaching time for vendors to just produce really stupid
SSDs: that is, ones that just do wear-leveling, and expose their true
page-size info (e.g. for MLC, how many blocks of X size have to be
written at once) and t
On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Maybe it's approaching time for vendors to just produce really
stupid SSDs: that is, ones that just do wear-leveling, and expose
their true page-size info (e.g. for MLC, how many blocks of X size
h
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Maybe it's approaching time for vendors to just produce really stupid SSDs:
that is, ones that just do wear-leveling, and expose their true page-size
info (e.g. for MLC, how many blocks of X size have to be written at once) and
that's about it. Let fil
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote:
Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller
that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702
It reads like SandForce has implemented a bunch of ZFS
On Jan 1, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote:
Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller
that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702
It reads like SandForce
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote:
Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller
that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702
It reads like SandForce has implemented a bunch of ZFS like
functionality in f
26 matches
Mail list logo
