Who Can Recompile A Vm Os?

[Perris Calderon]

ya

I had to type fast, and didn't represent one solution to the issue of repopulating the drive.

imagine this

you boot to xp...or linux...doesn't matter, I'm just making a point...in reality, it would of course be an open source os, so w could work on this.

ok, so you boot to linux

you are booting from the harddrive, and you are up and working just as soon.

now, in the backround, the os is secretly caching all of the hardrive into your ram...all of it.

when this is done, the os will switch to your ram drive...as you work

so

no slowdown waiting to boot, as the boot remains the same as it would a conventional boot.

then, a couple of minuts into your work, the turbocharger kicks in

now, you are working entirely from cache.

and now, while you are working from cache, the hardrive is also storing the work at the same time that you are working from your cache...

total physical prtection from a crash, but totall speed of everything you are working on as you are not using the hardrive for your work

 

[X-Istence]

uhm, i doubt this would be faster. The more ram you have, the more memory locations a program needs to remember, and if everything is stored in ram, it will slow down several other things, and it would be just as fast as a HD. I just suggest a bigger HD cache, and a faster connection to the HD, and youve got what you want.

 

[Geffy]

I could see a benefit of switching from Hard Drives to Solid State Media, but if you are constantly writing the information back to the hard drive, I dont see the point. Its like RAID 1+0 sort of, with Mirroring, yeah no striping, so just RAID 1 or 0 which ever I havent got a RAID card anymore so I cant remember.

 

[NetRyder]

Originally posted by dealer
now, in the backround, the os is secretly caching all of the hardrive into your ram...all of it.
[...]
and now, while you are working from cache, the hardrive is also storing the work at the same time that you are working from your cache...

The idea seems fine ... BUT:

Scenario 1 - what we are looking at
As far as I can see, you are simultaneously running multiple processes at the same time WITH the hard disk involved ... for example, I'm working with Photoshop, and a background process is simultaneously transfering data from the RAM to the hard disk, right? Wouldn't that contribute to an overall slowdown?
ADVANTAGE: Real-time back up to hard disk
DISADVANTAGE: Overall slow down due to background process

Scenario 2: An Alternative
On the other hand, if you decide to move data from RAM to the hard disk (and hard disk to RAM) only when the computer is idle, that would be a different scenario. Things would definitely be much faster, but that would mean longer boot time, which I would be willing to face for an eventually more responsive work environment. More importantly though, we would need to be completely immune from power outages in such a case.
ADVANTAGE: Extremely responsive work environment
DISADVANTAGE: Power outage would lead to data loss ... too risky.

What do u think?

 

[Krux]

Originally posted by X-Istence
Just make the harddrive cache bigger, so that way its faster, and get rid of all the bottlenecks of IDE, and get a bigger pipe to the HD, and were all set, running from memory is useless, since ROM gets deleted once you shutdown, and having it done in the background means its more a cache than where a system runs from.

Rom isn't cleared on power down RAM is a ROM is like your bios and it would be bad it it erased everytime you turned your computer off.

 

[Krux]

Originally posted by X-Istence
uhm, i doubt this would be faster. The more ram you have, the more memory locations a program needs to remember, and if everything is stored in ram, it will slow down several other things, and it would be just as fast as a HD. I just suggest a bigger HD cache, and a faster connection to the HD, and youve got what you want.

Ram will always be faster then a hard drive just because a hard drive is mechanical you will never be able to move the arm in a hard drive as fast as electricity can move to a certain ram bank... if you could then we would be able to time travel the physics just don't support that theory. also the cache on your hard drive is ram thats why the 8mb WD drive has better performance then the 2mb version. what dealer is sugesting is that you just eliminate the lil cache on the HDD and just make a big RAM drive instead. load times after the initial load would be 100x faster. I also think the HDD should be access when things are saved or a program is closed it should be updated not while it is running.

 

[Geffy]

I have a time machine, only works going forward, and I havent got to going longer than 18 hours yet.

its about 6 to 7 ft long and about 3 or 4 wide. It has a cover on it, and a nice comfy pillow

I still think this is what HyperOS does.

 

[Zedric]

If the hdd should write back any changes in the RAM, right? Even if this is queued, the queue can only be so long. When the queue is full the computer must wait for the hdd to clear some of the queue. Therefore the speed will effectively be slower than intended an very dependant on the hdd speed.

Also about getting a bigger cache. The bigger the cache, the slower it is (takes time to look through). So a vary big cache won't help much at all. It needs to be "the right size".

 

[Perris Calderon]

what dealer is sugesting is that you just eliminate the lil cache on the HDD and just make a big RAM drive instead. load times after the initial load would be 100x faster. .

this is the idea exactly, increasing the cache to the equal amount of space that you are using for storage.

on boot, while you are begin working, all that you have srored...not only what you are working on, but your entire hardrive will go into cache

so, even though you weren't working on a document...say it's a word document that you havem't accessed in a year

boom

up as if you allready have the word launched and the window open

 

[AlphaGremlin]

Have the entire OS on a ROM. Fixes piracy problems. Simple module you slot into a motherboard for upgrades Plus ROM is fast as hell to access, so load times are a thing of the past.
OS Module includes a flash system that holds drivers\operating software\etc so it can be patched with service packs and things.
Whenever the OS bombs, simply reset the flash and everything is back.
Flash and ROMs are getting cheaper every day anyway.

Keep your documents\games\music\etc on a hard disk, and have them cached like spoken of before.

Advantages:Blazing fast OS, no more need to reinstall Windows\Linux\etc if\when it screws
Disadvantages:Completely new motherboard design required, open-source OS's would be slower because they would have to use old method.

For the suggested method of huge ram-disk, instead of the OS handling the hard-disk you would use hardware. No slowdowns or need for special operating systems. Set it up in the BIOS.

BTW, I have 1gb of ram and turned off the page file. With 2700 DDR, this thing flys! And with XP I optimise for cache. Watching movies caches the entire 700mb file and I have to wait for the hard-disk to spin up when it finishes playing.

 

[X-Istence]

Sorry, i meant RAM.

I still dont see a benefit. And moving the arm of the HD is fast enough to transfer about 5 GB of data per minute from HD to HD on 2 different SCSI controllers.

i dont see why we need a faster OS, plus after loading it, it would take time to look for the data in the memory, effectively saying what someone said about the WD HD cache.

I would rather have photoshop load a second longer, and then let me use it, than have it stored in my ram, which i could be using more usefull.

Lets say i have a 40 GB hd, i would need 40 GB ram, plus another 10 at least so i dont have to "swap" cause accessing the HD would be to time consuming.

This would mean in essence i need 50 GB memory, now i have 45 GB of data, just random stuff in this ram, how is it gonna find this one document i need? It would need to SEARCH the entire 50 GB's for this one document, this searching would be just as fast as an arm in the HD moving over and getting it straight from the HD.

Plus HD's are getting faster and faster, so really wahts the point, once every computer has a new way to communicated with the HD that is faster than the IDE we have now, we dont really have to worry anymore.

The ide bottle neck is huge, plus if we have 2 HD's on the same bus, the system cant write to both at the same time, since only one datastream can be opened to one HD, and the slave will always have to ask the master if it is okay to iniate a stream to be written 2.

Now i would like to see your views and replies, but we really should just drop this idea, and ask the companies to develop a faster system for harddrive access, and lets spin the disks a bit faster.

peace out.
X-Istence

 

[Perris Calderon]

>i dont see why we need a faster OS, plus after loading it, it would take time to look for the data in the memory

no, it wouldn't, as you would be able to begin work as soon as the os launches...you don't wait for the transfer...no time differance at all

>I would rather have photoshop load a second longer, and then let me use it, than have it stored in my ram, which i could be using more usefull.

first, most programs will launch as if they are already opened...huge.

and second, I didn't make myself clear;

the hardrive is working just as did without the ram drive...in other words, there is no differance in hardrive activity, but you are not slowed by it, as your work is qued to the hardrive, instead of you waiting or needing to wait for the hardrive to finnish

huge

>Lets say i have a 40 GB hd, i would need 40 GB ram, plus another 10 at least so i dont have to "swap" cause accessing the HD would be to time consuming.

no, all you need is an equal amount of ram as you do hardrive...and in the instance that you suggest, then the os would act just as xp already does, and it would become a virtual memory os instead of a memory os.


>Plus HD's are getting faster and faster, so really wahts the point, once every computer has a new way to communicated with the HD that is faster than the IDE we have now, we dont really have to worry anymore.

as allready stated

>The ide bottle neck is huge, plus if we have 2 HD's on the same bus, the system cant write to both at the same time,

no bottle neck...que...no need to write to both...ram is fast, and the hardrive waits in que

I guess I'll explain que

que means it doesn't happen until i=nothing is affected by it's activity

all hardrive activity waits in que

 

[Krux]

Originally posted by X-Istence
Sorry, i meant RAM.

I still dont see a benefit. And moving the arm of the HD is fast enough to transfer about 5 GB of data per minute from HD to HD on 2 different SCSI controllers.

i dont see why we need a faster OS, plus after loading it, it would take time to look for the data in the memory, effectively saying what someone said about the WD HD cache.

I would rather have photoshop load a second longer, and then let me use it, than have it stored in my ram, which i could be using more usefull.

Lets say i have a 40 GB hd, i would need 40 GB ram, plus another 10 at least so i dont have to "swap" cause accessing the HD would be to time consuming.

This would mean in essence i need 50 GB memory, now i have 45 GB of data, just random stuff in this ram, how is it gonna find this one document i need? It would need to SEARCH the entire 50 GB's for this one document, this searching would be just as fast as an arm in the HD moving over and getting it straight from the HD.

Plus HD's are getting faster and faster, so really wahts the point, once every computer has a new way to communicated with the HD that is faster than the IDE we have now, we dont really have to worry anymore.

The ide bottle neck is huge, plus if we have 2 HD's on the same bus, the system cant write to both at the same time, since only one datastream can be opened to one HD, and the slave will always have to ask the master if it is okay to iniate a stream to be written 2.

Now i would like to see your views and replies, but we really should just drop this idea, and ask the companies to develop a faster system for harddrive access, and lets spin the disks a bit faster.

peace out.
X-Istence

your not understanding the physics behind a hard drive it has mass there fore it could never go as fast at ram ram can move at the speed of light because it has no moving parts. you will never have a "hard drive" that is faster then ram its not physically possible if it could move anywhere near as fast as the ram the platters and the arm would melt from the resistence of the air in there there is nothing with "mass" that can move at those speeds
the speed of light is roughly 186 000 miles per second. and that’s how fast the electricity is moving in the ram. and what your average HDD spins at 7500rpm's and has an arm it has to move back and forth to get to certain spots on the disk. Also what’s the access time on a good HDD? About 8.9m/s millionths of a second now what’s the access time on ram? 2.5-3n/s billionths of a second which is roughly about .06m/s (which is about 20X faster) hmmmm an hdd with .06m/s seek time hmmmmmm do you see the big difference in speed now?


Ram will ALWAYS be faster then a Hard Drive with MOVING parts. now if they made some new type of hdd like a ROM Drive or solid state drive then you would have the same speed. the HDD will always be your computer biggest bottle neck.

 

[X-Istence]

Excuse me, but i think i have a good understanding of how a PC works.

I still dont see the use at all, and that qeue thing, fantastic. I have a huge qeue of crap that has to be written to the HD, and suddenly the power goes out. O damn, there goes my work, there goes my video edit, o there goes my whatever was still not written to the HD.

The day someone creates an OS that loads everything in RAM, is the day i write my own, its plain stupid.

Plus if everything has to be written to the HD at some time, and you are constantly busy, and then shutdown, the shutdown will take longer since it has to write it all the the HD after all.

And i dont think, unless your a gfx artist or working with huge files, you wouldnt see a speed increase. Plus a normal user would login to the computer, do what he/she needs to do, and shutdown, meaning no idle time, no time to write the HD to ram, in the meanwhile it still has stuff it needs to write to the HD. Now what?

Plus, if the OS needs to load its **** into ram just so that it can be faster and more responsive, i consider it bloat. Any OS does not need to load more than 50 MB of stuff into its RAM/Swap to work. XP does, and yes i do consider it bloat.

i still think this is stupid idea. But hey, you all dont seem to see my point, or do see it but dont like it =).

Access time for scsi hard drives is getting less and less, and a normal home user wouldnt notice, all it would be used for would be some random people that want it, and some business that needs a faster OS. But in the end, there is a limit to how fast we can make ram and how fast we can find stuff in ram. Plus there are other issues other than just the IDE that slow down a PC.

I am much more a fan of having a HD where data can be saved, than having it qeue up, power outage and i lose more data than when it would have directly written it to the HD.

 

[Krux]

no one said it would cut save time down and if it had active saving as in like you install drivers or you save a file or a game it should save striaght to the disk at the same time its saving to the ram drive. if say servers where run with an OS like this they would be infinitly faster with potienally less heat and noise. Iand I didn't ask you if you know how computers worked I told you the physics behind it and what you are saying is not possible in the laws of physics. sorry to burst your bubble but hard drives can just never be faster then ram can. with that said....



IF the OS was designed for a solid state ROM power outages wouldn't matter. (and even with a HDD power outages can cause lost and currpt data. if you don't believe me start your puter and start doing something then just unplug it and see what happens) something like this might take some new tech. or a modded mobo with say a battery that can keep the RAM drive powered if the power does happen to go out so you don't loose anything. if it where a ROM Drive the OS could just simply say to itself hey I didn't get shut down right so ill boot from the ROM instead of the HDD so updates/saves can be made to the hdd.

Originally posted by X-Istence
And i dont think, unless your a gfx artist or working with huge files, you wouldnt see a speed increase. Plus a normal user would login to the computer, do what he/she needs to do, and shutdown, meaning no idle time, no time to write the HD to ram, in the meanwhile it still has stuff it needs to write to the HD. Now what?

1, when the computer first boots it would be from the hdd working as how any other OS would. But after it’s into the OS it starts pulling stuff from the hdd and stores it into the ram. How many files do you think a person will change/save in the 10 minutes there on, there pc checking there mail? The way I am suggesting is that the hdd is saved to in real time at the same time as the ram might increase save times by what? 10% 15% (remembering read write times of ram compared to a hdd) then when you go to turn off the pc it doesn’t have to save anything in fact it should be able to turn off faster then any other computer.

2, if your working with huge files you would most defiantly see HUGE speed increases (again keeping in mind read write speeds of ram compared to a hdd) if you open a huge file from ram the load time would be insanely faster then if that same file had to be pulled from a hard drive. Which is where I think this type of OS would be extremely well met is in a server application. Because it could handle more request for information then one based off a hdd setup. Which brings me to another point that was why the raid configs where even made to try and speed up load times instead of one drive doing all the work they split it into smaller parts for multiple drives to handle at once. How many hdd do you think it would take to get a 8.9ms seek time down to .06ms? 15? 20? Each only handling say a CDR sized file (650mb) each would only be handling about 35 ½ megs a drive wow…. Hmmmm yup one stick of ram (big enough) could handle the same job in the same amount of time and by itself. and thats just in seek times thats not even going into bandwidth. ATA 133 can move (some one tell me cuzz this is a guess) 33megs a second (in spec not real world)

What you think?

 

[XP Abuser]

just have 100gb of solid state memory

10gb could be for RAM (but it would be ROM) meaning it would never lose data and would be able to switch on like a TV

and 90gb for data storage. which would have an average seek time of 15ns (nanoseconds) kicking the **** out of a measly 8ms seek time

 

[XP Abuser]

Originally posted by XP Abuser
just have 100gb of solid state memory

10gb could be for RAM (but it would be ROM) meaning it would never lose data and would be able to switch on like a TV

and 90gb for data storage. which would have an average seek time of 15ns (nanoseconds) kicking the **** out of a measly 8ms seek time

... that would generate some heat hehe

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by X-Istence


I still dont see the use at all, and that qeue thing, fantastic. I have a huge qeue of crap that has to be written to the HD, and suddenly the power goes out. O damn, there goes my work, there goes my video edit, o there goes my whatever was still not written to the HD.
.

I guess I'm not able to make this clear.

the hardrive will have absoulutely no extra burdon then it has already

the only reason it will need to que is because you are working faster then the hardrive can,

this is a burst situation, and not a constant situation.

there will be absolutely no extra activity to the hardrive.

the hardrive activity remains constant to what it is now, and nothing will be lost in addtional hardrive activity, or the speed with which work is recorded to the hardrive...nothing

as I said, the only reason at all to provide a que is because the os you are working on will have burst speeds that suprpass what the hardrive can occomodate...whatver hardrive activity that you concur will be identical to the hardrive activity if there was not a ram disc.

there will be less of a bottleneck then there is now, not more...and the que will not be measurelable as any additional wait by the user, orhardrive...plus, it will not give less integrity of the work then a conventional os, as the hardrive is maintaining integrity with exactly the same speed and reliability as if there were no ram drive.

 

[Perris Calderon]

plus, I'd like to point out;

with a system like this, as most people already do not turn their box down, you would avoid turning your box down even more so with this os..

the only people that might be affected by the hardrive dump into ram are those with laptops, and as we've already pointed out, there is no additional wait to work

you are waiting for a benefit, without a slowdown in the meantime

 

[Iceman]

sorry to say this has been tried before, pretty sure IBM tried it several years ago, remeber reading something about it.

It didn't work.