From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983391384C1 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0D5F1421E; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8329E14088 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclp12 with SMTP id lp12so1664800wic.1 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GzkgE6TI/h6A+OHpXBN090zE0cIrY/51tMRoZXKkXgo=; b=PSrUE3oD0LAr2GPh7Hji6m7NrM2FA2CGQ5rgVNsewIpzTK//eGx6hhyF9eBABYZhmV VPL528tBap1r+MWnwkAtA99zMbEYXnNlRfCeK6xi5kzmSv9IdsCTxBamlq7Gr8ca7WEr eSTeRBW0Pvs2zs7SP8P3pmgdrrmcC2vQPgUSM3av40SQHgWqRkNpxsqIELn7zEiw6gEd QcJ0vgaiPLbg34VUUOcEuFvoDf5BD+HmZNisH4LS6lGdRDPaZSEQnsiBb36YAEPeHHMP R3hG2mJK7CghmM2Rp+PY5aoV5T6SMTD9bZQ4CL1cD6w23YdMlEQWo2rApnyq9sHqlvHC 5AsA== X-Received: by 10.194.235.169 with SMTP id un9mr27285203wjc.136.1441031995331; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.20.0.41] (105-237-150-165.access.mtnbusiness.co.za. [105.237.150.165]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id en5sm18343276wib.18.2015.08.31.07.39.48 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [OT] Was re: [gentoo-user] system uptime To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20150830040443.GA1081@ca.inter.net> <8551914.hU4FhT7smn@wstn> <55E42184.6080002@gmail.com> <4288619.Y3CmtWJjyg@wstn> From: Alan McKinnon X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55E4671E.5050604@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:39:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4288619.Y3CmtWJjyg@wstn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3c138e03-4c4f-4cff-9dc4-186d48ce4c8a X-Archives-Hash: 43b476dc8bf2abc2ad2425010e4ccd07 On 31/08/2015 15:41, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Monday 31 August 2015 11:42:28 Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 31/08/2015 10:50, Peter Humphrey wrote: >>> The desktop machine I'm referring to (an Amari "workstation") dates from >>> 2009. It has an i5 processor, 16GB RAM* and two 2GB SSDs as the main >>> power sinks. It sits (runs) in a boxroom 6ft square and keeps it >>> comfortably warm. I haven't noticed any change in ambient temp since the >>> SSDs replaced spinners. >>> >>> * Whoever named that Random Access had a strange understanding of English. >>> The last thing I want from memory is random access! How much better it >>> would have been to call it something like Direct Access. Oh well - much >>> too late now. >> >> It's random access to distinguish it from serial access. In the early >> early days there were a lot of strange methods being tried to build >> memory - like dots on a cathode ray tube! To get to bit you wanted, you >> had to wait till the scanning beam reached that part of the screen - >> serial access. Addressable memory on a grid pattern came much later. > > Yes, of course I know all that, but it's still the antithesis of random - it's > absolutely specific. Random is what you'd get if you didn't specify anything. Ah, an old timer - I forgot that for a second there :-) > My favourite storage medium was core store. Millions of tiny ferrite rings, > each at an intersection of orthogonal X and Y wires to specify the address, > and a write pulse on another wire on the Z axis. At least, that's as close as > I can remember now, 40 years later. No wonder computers were expensive. 40 years maybe, but still dead on the money. That's exactly how that memory worked. > > I won't tell you what systems used a 24-bit processor and 12 or 16 KB of 2us > core store backed by a 2MB disk (three feet in diameter), for fear of > frightening you. ;-) Nah, I have some experience with such things. Remember the old horror stories about not smoking in the computer room, because smoke particles are much bigger than fly height of the disk heads? The young 'uns here never had to deal with that. > >> Random Access really means "able to access any random address as fast as >> any other random address". > > My point is simply that the addresses are very far from randomly chosen. The > distinguishing feature of the store is that you can go directly to the > required location, without having to wait for it to reach the read/write > device. We understand each other perfectly; the odd bit is that word "random". We both know it doesn't have the obvious meaning to a modern eye, and we both know what random access really means > > As I said though, there'd be no point in getting all stressed about it now. > >> RAM is also not the opposite of ROM :-) > > I seem to be having a senior moment here; at least, I don't follow that. When I was still a kid learning about memory, many folks thought ROM was very different from RAM, and that somehow ROM didn't have the same random access qualities that RAM has. It does, except that ROM can't be written (and dynamic RAM needs continual refreshing which ROM doesn't, but that's another topic). Eventually I gave up trying to clarify that part, but sometimes (like now) the old habit comes back -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com