[Beowulf] Is there really a need for Exascale?
diep at xs4all.nl
Thu Nov 29 16:46:22 PST 2012
On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 02:19:26PM +0000, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
>> On 11/28/12 11:46 PM, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:14:39AM -0500, Mark Hahn wrote:
>>> I've been waiting for cache to die and be substituted by
>>> on-die SRAM or MRAM. Yet to happen, but if it happens,
>>> it will be with embedded-like systems.
>> When running, SRAM consumes a lot more power and space than almost
>> kind of DRAM. 2-4 transistors per cell vs 1, if nothing else.
> Yes, but we're talking cache. Cache is SRAM with extra logic.
Correct, the L3 caches of most CPU's are simply SRAM.
> Even a cache hit is slower than it would take to access on-die
> SRAM. Cache coherency doesn't scale due to relativistically
> constrained signalling. There also cannot be any such thing
> as a global memory, unless you want it to be slow and spend
> a lot of silicon real estate to make multiple writes to the
> same location consistent.
>> A big problem is that the CMOS process for dense, low power, fast
>> RAM is
>> different than what you want to use for a CPU. And even between
>> DRAM and
>> SRAM there's a pretty big difference. (trenches, etc.)
> This is why we need stacked memories. Notice that MRAM might be
> with CPU fabbing processes. ST-MRAM
> should have very good scaling in terms of performance and power
> dissipation and can potentially be fabricated on top of an
> ordinary CPU core http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~cart/publications/
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
More information about the Beowulf