▲ | adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can't use a single cell of RAM at GHz frequencies. By the time you read a value and write another value back, you're talking about ~200ns so you are capped at ~5mhz writes (and anything that you are actually trying to access that quickly will be in caches anyway so your writes won't make it out to the DRAM unless you explicitly flush the caches) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | nomel 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
200ns seems a bit high. But, if you do the math, you'll find that's a practically negligible difference, at only 6 hours at 5MHz. DRAM appears to be closer to 300 hours, at reasonable temperatures [1], at the worst case workload. It would be interesting if Google released their failure rates, like they did with hard disk vs ssd. [1] modeled failures, page 75: https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:e36c2de7-a8d3-4dfa... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | deepnotderp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sure, but conventional DRAM endurance is 10^15 or more |