Researchers have developed a flash memory technology capable of subnanosecond switching speeds, significantly faster than current technologies. This breakthrough uses hot electrons generated by quantum tunneling through a ferroelectric hafnium zirconium oxide barrier, modulating the resistance of a ferroelectric tunnel junction. The demonstrated write speed of 0.5 nanoseconds, coupled with multi-level cell capability and good endurance, opens possibilities for high-performance and low-power non-volatile memory applications. This ultrafast switching potentially bridges the performance gap between memory and logic, paving the way for novel computing architectures.
The article "The Size of Packets" explores the distribution of IP packet sizes on the internet, emphasizing the enduring prevalence of small packets despite increasing bandwidth. It analyzes data from various sources, highlighting that the median packet size remains stubbornly around 400-500 bytes, even on high-speed links. This challenges the assumption that larger packets dominate modern networks and underscores the importance of optimizing network infrastructure for small packet efficiency. The piece also delves into the historical context of packet sizes, touching on Ethernet's influence and the continued relevance of TCP/IP headers, which contribute significantly to the overall size, especially for smaller payloads.
HN users generally agree with the article's premise that smaller packets are better for latency. Several commenters note the importance of considering protocol overhead when discussing packet size, particularly in the context of VoIP and gaming where latency is critical. Some point out the trade-off between smaller packets (lower latency) and larger packets (higher throughput), suggesting that the "optimal" packet size depends on the specific application and network conditions. One commenter questions the article's dismissal of jumbo frames, arguing they can be beneficial in certain scenarios like data centers. Others offer additional resources and technical explanations regarding packet fragmentation and reassembly. A few commenters discuss the historical context of packet size, referencing older protocols and network limitations.
The original poster wonders why there isn't a widely adopted peer-to-peer (P2P) protocol for live streaming similar to how BitTorrent works for file sharing. They envision a system where viewers contribute their bandwidth to distribute the stream, reducing the load on the original broadcaster and potentially improving stability and scalability, especially for events with large audiences. The existing solutions mentioned, like WebRTC, are acknowledged but considered inadequate for various reasons, primarily due to complexity, latency issues, or lack of true decentralization. Essentially, they're asking why the robust distribution model of torrents hasn't been effectively translated to live video.
HN users discussed the challenges of real-time P2P streaming, citing issues with latency, the complexity of coordinating a swarm for live content, and the difficulty of achieving stable, high-quality streams compared to client-server models. Some pointed to existing projects like WebTorrent and Livepeer as partial solutions, though limitations around scalability and adoption were noted. The inherent trade-offs between latency, quality, and decentralization were a recurring theme, with several suggesting that the benefits of P2P might not outweigh the complexities for many streaming use cases. The lack of a widely adopted P2P streaming protocol seems to stem from these technical hurdles and the relative ease and effectiveness of centralized alternatives. Several commenters also highlighted the potential legal implications surrounding copyrighted material often associated with streaming.
The blog post "IO Devices and Latency" explores the significant impact of I/O operations on overall database performance, emphasizing that optimizing queries alone isn't enough. It breaks down the various types of latency involved in storage systems, from the physical limitations of different storage media (like NVMe drives, SSDs, and HDDs) to the overhead introduced by the operating system and file system layers. The post highlights the performance benefits of using direct I/O, which bypasses the OS page cache, for predictable, low-latency access to data, particularly crucial for database workloads. It also underscores the importance of understanding the characteristics of your storage hardware and software stack to effectively minimize I/O latency and improve database performance.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of measuring and mitigating I/O latency. Some questioned the blog post's methodology, particularly its reliance on fio and the potential for misleading results due to caching effects. Others offered alternative tools and approaches for benchmarking storage performance, emphasizing the importance of real-world workloads and the limitations of synthetic tests. Several commenters shared their own experiences with storage latency issues and offered practical advice for diagnosing and resolving performance bottlenecks. A recurring theme was the complexity of the storage stack and the need to understand the interplay of various factors, including hardware, drivers, file systems, and application behavior. The discussion also touched on the trade-offs between performance, cost, and complexity when choosing storage solutions.
Storing data on the moon is being explored as a potential safeguard against terrestrial disasters. While the concept faces significant challenges, including extreme temperature fluctuations, radiation exposure, and high launch costs, proponents argue that lunar lava tubes offer a naturally stable and shielded environment. This would protect valuable data from both natural and human-caused calamities on Earth. The idea is still in its early stages, with researchers investigating communication systems, power sources, and robotics needed for construction and maintenance of such a facility. Though ambitious, a lunar data center could provide a truly off-site backup for humanity's crucial information.
HN commenters largely discuss the impracticalities and questionable benefits of a moon-based data center. Several highlight the extreme cost and complexity of building and maintaining such a facility, citing issues like radiation, temperature fluctuations, and the difficulty of repairs. Some question the latency advantages given the distance, suggesting it wouldn't be suitable for real-time applications. Others propose alternative solutions like hardened earth-based data centers or orbiting servers. A few explore potential niche use cases like archival storage or scientific data processing, but the prevailing sentiment is skepticism toward the idea's overall feasibility and value.
Summary of Comments ( 21 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43740803
Hacker News users discuss the potential impact of subnanosecond flash memory, focusing on its speed improvements over existing technologies. Several commenters express skepticism about the practical applications given the bottleneck likely to exist in the interconnect speed, questioning if the gains justify the complexity. Others speculate about possible use cases where this speed boost could be significant, like in-memory databases or specialized hardware applications. There's also a discussion around the technical details of the memory's operation and its limitations, including write endurance and potential scaling challenges. Some users acknowledge the research as an interesting advancement but remain cautious about its real-world viability and cost-effectiveness.
The Hacker News post titled "Subnanosecond Flash Memory" with the ID 43740803 has several comments discussing the linked Nature article about a new type of flash memory. While many commenters express excitement about the potential of this technology, a significant portion of the discussion revolves around its practicality and commercial viability.
Several comments question the real-world implications of the speed improvements, pointing out that the overall system performance is often limited by other factors like interconnect speeds and software overhead. One commenter highlights that while sub-nanosecond switching is impressive, it doesn't necessarily translate to a proportional improvement in overall system performance. They argue that other bottlenecks will likely prevent users from experiencing the full benefit of this increased speed.
Another recurring theme is the discussion around the energy consumption of this new technology. Commenters acknowledge the importance of reducing energy consumption in memory devices, but some express skepticism about the energy efficiency of the proposed solution. They inquire about the energy costs associated with the high switching speeds and whether these gains are offset by increased power demands.
Some commenters delve into the technical details of the paper, discussing the materials and fabrication processes involved. They raise questions about the scalability and manufacturability of the proposed technology, wondering how easily it could be integrated into existing manufacturing processes.
Several commenters compare this new flash memory with other emerging memory technologies, such as MRAM and ReRAM. They discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of each technology, speculating about which might ultimately become the dominant technology in the future.
There's also a discussion regarding the specific applications where this technology would be most beneficial. Some suggest high-performance computing and AI applications, while others mention the potential for improvements in mobile devices and embedded systems.
Finally, some commenters express a cautious optimism, acknowledging the potential of the technology while also recognizing the significant challenges that need to be overcome before it becomes commercially viable. They emphasize the importance of further research and development to address the issues of scalability, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.