Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

A Magnetic Memory Alternative to Hard Disk 258

Dr Occult writes "Finally, a magnetic memory chip has been manufactured in volume and released by the U.S. company Freescale. Christened MRAM (magnetoresistive random-access memory),this chip will hold information even after power has been switched off. From the BBC news article: 'Unlike flash memory, which also can keep data without power, Mram has faster read and write speeds and does not degrade over time,' and 'MRAM chips could one day be used in PCs to store an operating system, allowing computers to start up faster when switched on.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Magnetic Memory Alternative to Hard Disk

Comments Filter:
  • by Skynet ( 37427 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:10AM (#15690843) Homepage
    XP boots in about a minute, and Linux never needs to be rebooted. :)

    What other applications could this have besides boot time?
  • Re:Price? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cyfer2000 ( 548592 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:22AM (#15690924) Journal
    The major advantage of MRAM is speed. They are extreme high speed nonvolatile RAM, even faster than DRAM. So if you need such a thing, you need to pay for it. Also, the current structure of MRAM is pretty complicated. It is made of multilayers of different metals. Depositing different metals onto silicon wafer is still something nasty though people have been depositing Aluminium and Copper for some time. There are some groups working on magnetic semiconductors, so they use common fabrication method to produce MRAM. So the price of MRAM can drop dramatically if these groups succeed. However, so far, the magnetic semiconductors are even expensive than the multilayer metals structure.
  • by metarox ( 883747 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:31AM (#15690998) Homepage
    you could probably get your computer to sleep lowering power consumption to very low values and on a single key-press having everything restored almost instantly.
  • by MrNemesis ( 587188 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:55AM (#15691174) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I don't give a rats arse about bootup time.

    What I do want, however, is good rewritable storage with NO MOVING PARTS! It'll make things like under-the-TV HTPC's much, much more feasible - you have a small ~10GB boot drive for the core OS components, and a big ol' hard drive that spends much of it's time spun down. On top of that, you could have almost instant resume from hibernate

    Corporate users would also gain colossal benefits; I know that by far the most common failure I see at work is a dead or dying hard drive, which are a pain to replace in OEM machines which tend to be built so that only people with advanvced degrees it WTF Ergonomics and How To Wire Like A Spider On Drugs can open them. Replace that with a solid state unit with no moving parts and the problem is more or less instantly solved. Heck, depending on its overall reliabilty we might even be able to dump things like RAID in the mid to long term.

    Does anyone have any non-fluff stuff about wha power consumption, max transfer and the like is? Since it's MRAM I expect that it'll only need to use power when reading or writing to disc, right? Hence I'd expect power usage to be practically zero - another huge boon for corporate users. Colossal possible bandwidth and low latency are the icing on the cake.

    Disclaimer: I know little about MRAM other than what I've read in fluff pieces before. Time to visit Wikipedia...
  • Slow Bubbles (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:04AM (#15691244) Homepage Journal
    I've been hearing about these kinds of devices since "bubble memory [wikipedia.org].

    Why can't I get a motherboard with 500MB Flash for storing an image of system memory exactly after the OS is loaded and initialized, that is blitted over to RAM and then tweaked (system clock, network counters, etc) in a few milliseconds? All the "loading" from storage to RAM includes minutes of computation like a second "compilation" that's practically identical every time I start the machine. How much computing power is wasted on that redundant exercise every day, around the world? I'd like to reinit only when the startup becomes corrupt, which a "known good" ROM instance could avoid better than the current chaotic process.
  • by michaelvkim ( 981938 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:04AM (#15691245)
    If data is stored as magnetic bits, wouldn't a very small magnet corrupt all this data? Computer users are warned to keep magnets away from your hard drive due to data loss, but it seems this would magnify (get it?) that problem tenfold.
  • by constantnormal ( 512494 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:42AM (#15691519)
    ... in place of flash memory to provide that speedy boot-up. At least MRAM would not have an upper limit on cycles of use as flash memory does. There's also the possibility that MRAMs could be used in a memory hierarchy in place of power-hungry SRAMs, providing a faster layer of memory than DRAMs for a lot less power consumption. And finally, there is the possibility of re-designing an OS to take advantage of this new form of non-volatile memory, putting most-frequently referenced objects or objects that are essential to running the system in MRAM to take advantage of either the speed or non-volatile aspects of it.

    I think Freescale has produced this because they don't know how to market it, and are willing to listen and see how what marketplace does with a device having these unique characteristics.

    It will, of course, get smaller, cheaper, faster over time. Whether it gets cheaper fast enough to open new markets remains an open question.
  • by Intron ( 870560 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @12:04PM (#15691688)
    What wearout? Imagine that you start doing writes continuously spread over a 40GB flash drive for 5-years (typical high-end HD warranty period). How many times will you write to any given sector assume that you have a good load leveling algorithm?

    Assume 15 MB/s write. 40 GB will take about 45 mins. So in 5 years, you will only write each block 175,200 times which is within the 1,000,000 writes spec for flash. And this assumes that you do no reads at all.

    Wearout is a myth with modern flash filesystem software.
  • Re:Slow Bubbles (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fdrebin ( 846000 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @12:09PM (#15691726)
    Why can't I get a motherboard with 500MB Flash for storing an image of system memory exactly after the OS is loaded and initialized, that is blitted over to RAM and then tweaked (system clock, network counters, etc) in a few milliseconds? All the "loading" from storage to RAM includes minutes of computation like a second "compilation" that's practically identical every time I start the machine. How much computing power is wasted on that redundant exercise every day, around the world? I'd like to reinit only when the startup becomes corrupt, which a "known good" ROM instance could avoid better than the current chaotic process.

    Actually a simple alternative is quite feasible today - after a clean boot, write a "hibernate" image. At boot time, have the selection of the hibernate image as a boot option. 5 second boots!

    Not as good as your suggestion, but $cheaper.

    /F

  • Nonsense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @12:34PM (#15691907)
    Why allways the nonsense applications?

    "Alternative to harddisks"

    "Make the OS load faster"

    This is complete and utter nonsense. It is not a HDD alternative, because it if ar too small. OS loading is dominated by hardware detection and initialisation. A Linux-Kernel, e.g., is less than 2MB in size and is typically loaded in less than a second. This could be brought down further by the BIOS setting UDMA mode.

    I guess this product does not have any real application.
  • by orielbean ( 936271 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @12:54PM (#15692064)
    When you mean cheap, do you also indicate fail rates, read-write rates, costs of keeping HDD powered up and ready to go? Those are all cost factors too, not just retail price. I have no idea on the data btw. the two types, but certainly there are a few factors here as they are not exactly the same thing. They serve the same function of storage, but differently.
  • by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @01:22PM (#15692254) Journal
    As someone else pointed out, there's a vast difference between HD meant for media file storage and HDs meant for OS and application storage. The latter do not need to be nearly as big as the former, but for them speed is much more critical. If MRAM is as fast as today's DDR2, then it will be several orders of magnitude faster than hard drives. That performance difference (as well as the reliability and power improvements) makes your dollar/gigabyte comparisons completely irrelevant. People who need it (businesses) WILL buy it, and that in turn will drive down the cost to the point that hobbyists and gamers will buy it (though likely just as an OS and maybe application disk--not for media file storage.)
  • by Phleg ( 523632 ) <stephen@@@touset...org> on Monday July 10, 2006 @02:05PM (#15692575)

    If I were to put together a high-end machine right now I would certainly throw in at least 2 hard drives. A very small 10RPM drive for the OS, programs, and a much larger (but probably slower) drive for storing all my files.
    And you would be making an extraordinarily silly mistake. The OS is loaded from the disk at most once and stored in memory. Data is accessed over and over, giving a *much* better increase in performance if stored on the faster drive.
  • Clarification: I mean the OS and other executables.

    And I just think you're flat out wrong in your assertion. Maybe on a server data is accessed over and over, but for normal desktop use data-access is sporadic. I don't listen to the same mp3s over and over, and I certainly don't watch the same 5 minutes of a DVD on a loop pattern. I suppose if I was doing intensive video editing, I would want that video stored on high-performance drives. Same with any other very intensive read-write activity.

    But for the vast majority of desktop users the repeat data access is going to come from the Warcraft III .exe, not from any one section of their vast data collection.

    -stormin
  • by lostguru ( 987112 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @02:34PM (#15692772) Homepage
    Most modern os's wouldn't fit in memory, and if they did you would run out of ram very quickly and be forced to flog your hd for swap

    sure a chopped down linux distro may run in ram but no way in hell that vista will, or xp & 2k for that matter

    what you will want to do is load your data into ram when you access a file

    for a PC (and i mean personal comp. macs, linux, and typewriters included) this makes the most sense
  • by the_real_bto ( 908101 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @03:02PM (#15692943)
    Flash drives do not write FAT32 out to the flash.

    "Until recently, the common approach to using Flash memory technology in embedded devices has been to use a pseudo-filesystem on the flash chips to emulate a standard block device and provide wear levelling, and to use a normal file system on top of that emulated block device."

    Taken from http://linux-mtd.infradead.org/~dwmw2/jffs2.pdf [infradead.org].

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...