Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux

[Ian Stirling]

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>
> > IMHO the best alternative for a situation like that is a storage
> > controller with a battery-backed cache and a hunk of flash NVRAM for
> > when the power shuts off (just in case you run out of battery), as
> > well as a separate 1GB battery-backed PCI ramdisk for an external
> > journal device (likewise equipped with flash NVRAM).  It doesn't take


> Not sure - reading flash is fast, but writing is quite slow.
> A digital camera can consume a set of 2 or 4 2500 mAh AA cells
> for a fraction of 1 GB (of course, only a part of power goes
> to flash).

Yeah - that's why I said in the original message that it's not
especially lower in energy - the energy is used at a lower rate,
so is much cheaper to supply.
http://www.samsung.com/products/semiconductor/NORFlash/256Mbit/K8A5615EBA/K8A5615EBA.htm 
's datasheet says to program the 32Mbyte chip takes about 30mw*120s, or 
3.5J or so.
For a gigabyte, that's 100J - a fairly substantial amount of energy.
However - it's at a low rate, so it's not _too_ expensive to supply.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/