Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nanotube Memory Finally Beats Flash For Speed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-nano-for-your-nano dept.

Data Storage 86

holy_calamity writes "Although flash memory that stores each bit on a single nanotube has been tinkered with in the lab for years, it has always been much slower than the devices in use today. A Finnish team has now cracked that, demonstrating single bits of nanotube memory that can be written in just 100 nanoseconds. Existing flash memory takes tens of microseconds."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And what exactly (4, Funny)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756747)

what will we do when these "tubes" become clogged, and we can't get our email?

Re:And what exactly (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756775)

Call Joe the Nanoplumber?

Re:And what exactly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756847)

Well, flyingfsck, you lil' scamp, let us not forget computers *are* wonderful tools but for most subjects, students learn at that point in their lives (middle/high school in the US), computers aren't necessary. [zoy.org] Think about your breathing the primary subjects - Math, Science, and Literature/Writing - where do you see the benefits in using computers? Obviously for English classes, having access to computers to type papers is handy, but it's hardly necessary unlike your breathing. Computers can be used in math to help illustrate concepts, but you don't want the students using computers to do their work, otherwise they won't know how to do it without them. And much of science is math - again, not something you want students using computers for.

BTW, this is mfh [slashdot.org] positing as an AC /b/tard for oblivious reasons of the karmic now-ness. Or something. Anyway, peace out.

Re:And what exactly (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757277)

lol, internet tough guy

Re:And what exactly (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758239)

This Anonymous Coward guy is a whack job

Re:And what exactly (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763429)

Computers are SO unneccessary, yes ....

So how did you post this ? Chisel it out on a block of granite, and Fedex it to slashdot headquarters ?

What a whackjob !

Re:And what exactly (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757641)

Well done Sir!

PETA won't like this at all.... (2, Interesting)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756845)

I can already see the craigslist ads..."Wanted: Computer geek to come snake out my RAM."

Re:PETA won't like this at all.... (3, Funny)

Daswolfen (1277224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756943)

That's what she said!

Re:And what exactly (2, Funny)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756947)

what will we do when these "tubes" become clogged, and we can't get our internets?

Fixed it for you, Convict Stevens.

Re:And what exactly (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757421)

It's not something that you just dump something on! It's a series of tubes!

(for the less cultured of the /. readers... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs [youtube.com] )

Re:And what exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26766023)

I actually thought it was a pretty good metaphor... something I believe anyone who's ever shared a 56K connection with 5 other users can relate to.

Re:And what exactly (2, Funny)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758331)

You place some absorbent material [kleenex.com] over the end of the tubes and apply some extremely high voltage thru the third gate.

Re:And what exactly (1)

anexkahn (935249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26759719)

get some liquid nano-plubmer

Re:And what exactly (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26760731)

Great, just another set of tubes to tie. Like I'm made of money.

Netbooks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756757)

This should be very beneficial to netbooks! A lot of the current crop end up having pretty slow solid state drives.

Wow, that's pretty cool (5, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756779)

Call me back when it's available at Costco for 100$ per Terabyte.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (2, Insightful)

clonan (64380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756807)

Heck call me when a product is availible....at ANY price

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757349)

Heck call me when a product is availible....at ANY price

Sure. You can order it now for the low low price of $3 billion. Shipping time is estimated at 10 years and 7 days with free standard shipping, or 10 years and 3 days with Express Shipping for $15 extra.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

clonan (64380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757437)

COOL!

Who do I make the check out to? BTW it is post dated Feb6, 2019.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

Skrapion (955066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758803)

Make it out to me. I don't mind waiting until I'm 36 to become a billionaire.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26761825)

3 Billion Zimbabwe Dollar? ;)

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757747)

I RTFA yesterday, it will be a while. Right now they only have a one bit memory, and TFA says a lot more work will have to be done before they can get millions or billions of them on a chip, let alone mass produce the thing.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

BoothbyTCD (713107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784291)

Slashdot: News for Consumers, Stuff that's at Best Buy...

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756821)

You read /. but don't care about new hardware until its something you can buy for cheap? Okay... There are some hobbies you might consider, like stamp collecting, to more effectively use your time.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757431)

Stamp collecting. Bah.

I've read about the new Ben Franklin stamp they are talking about putting out. They can call me when I can mail it for less than 42 cents.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758053)

Why don't you more effectively use YOUR time by sucking my fucking COCK!

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1, Funny)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26759403)

That's a very ineffective use of time. It can take minutes just to make reliable oral contact with a cock that is in the process of fucking, and once achieved this contact is rarely any improvement on the previous status of the cock even in those cases where it is not an uncomfortable hindrance.

This is, of course, assuming that the orifice in question cannot accommodate a human head positioned such that sucking is possible from the inside. In that case, it's really questionable if what's happening can be called "fucking", or if it's really more like thrusting uselessly into a giant gaping void in reality.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756881)

Call me back when it's available at Costco for 100$ per Terabyte.

"this is Johnnie calling from Costco to inform that the requested drive is now available"

"sorry, Mr, John Doe died last year of waiting"

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757295)

RIP John. 2009-2010.
The waitiest waiter of them all.

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756899)

SSD's are more about speed than capacity at the moment, i make it about £2000/TB for current SSD's which can read/write at 250+MB/s, i cant see any rates given in TFA, but ive 100x shorter to write means even a further 10x in read/write rates, then you will again be paying for speed over capacity, and it will be this way for a long time yet

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757175)

I just can't wait for nanotube mellowed bourbon, when lifestyle technology gathers a whole new meaning. So long as nanotube condoms stay off the market...

Re:Wow, that's pretty cool (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758125)

Hey man, a "temporary visectemy" is just what most men desire. Condoms DO reduce the pleasure a bit...

I would have had first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756787)

but my tubes were clogged.

Re:I would have had first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756879)

Been hanging out with the GNAA again, have you?

That should... (4, Funny)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756849)

That should be faster than anybody would ever need...

Re:That should... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757023)

I think I can remember a day when system memory was measured in the 100s of nanoseconds.

Luxury! (3, Interesting)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26759693)

100s of nanoseconds? Luxury! When I were young you had to store your data as sound pulses in a tube full o' mercury. You had to wait 100s of milliseconds for the pulse to reach the other end. Tell that to kids nowadays, they won't believe you.

speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756867)

100 nanosecond are more than 10 nanosecond...

Re:speed (2, Informative)

Who Is The Drizzle (1470385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756885)

Existing flash memory takes tens of microseconds.

Re:speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756893)

100 nanosecond are more than 10 nanosecond...

But less than "tens of microseconds".

Reading. It helps.

Re:speed (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758489)

Where are all the fuckers who bitched about me when I said most people can't understand their beloved SI units for shit (let alone read in this case)?

Re:speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26759537)

They messed up their pluralization too. That must mean that most people can't understand plurals. Down with the plural regime! (Or is it "regimes"?)

Re:speed (2, Funny)

bytta (904762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762973)

There is no SI unit for shit, you insensitive clod!

Re:speed (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764151)

Yes there is, it's the shit-ton.

Re:speed (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784861)

Is that an imperial shit ton, or a metric shit tonne?

Does that mean... (1)

Daswolfen (1277224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756933)

... that Ted Stevens is a prophet and the internet WILL be a series of tubes?

Nano-Tubes?!?!?! (1, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756971)

Is this like some sort of scaled down version of the internet?

nano internet? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756995)

=0.1 library's of congress

Re:nano internet? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757019)

this was meant to be a reply to the 'Nano Tubes?!?!?!' thread

Re:nano internet? (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757171)

No, it would be 10^-9 LoCs. You're thinking of deci-internets.

Re:nano internet? (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757235)

im pretty sure the internet>LoC

Re:nano internet? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757757)

You imbecile! Or was it decibel? I'm don't remember, I have this german word... Asperger!

Re:nano internet? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758907)

Hmmm. I'm Asperger only on days with at least two vowels in the name.

Re:nano internet? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757905)

That's libraries [angryflower.com] .

"The library's open today"

"The libraries are all open"

"The library's books are all open"

"All the libraries' patrons the world over are open"

Low OPs lifetime (4, Insightful)

NuclearRampage (830297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757079)

"The device managed to withstand 18,000 operations, which is a reasonable lifetime for a memory device, she adds."
Is that good for experimental chips or do I not understand how such a low number is reasonable?

Re:Low OPs lifetime (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757189)

18,000 operations should be more than enough to fill this thing full of porn, there's no need to get greedy.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757283)

That's what she said.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (5, Informative)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757223)

Your average Flash chip does 100k erase/write cycles. 18k is certainly reasonable for new tech, which will certainly improve over time. The number refers to the number of operations per erasable block (or it will in the future), so in practice you get a much larger number of total I/O operations on the entire chip, given a reasonable wear leveling algorithm.

Not there yet... (2, Interesting)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757791)

How much latency does that algorithm add? They are only testing one bit. Won't a controller and the wear-reducing slow it down a fair amount?

Still a ways to go:
"The next challenge is to join an array together into a working memory chip, as the team has so far only tested single carbon nanotube elements. And although they have only proved capable of "remembering" data for several days after the power is cut, the team are confident this can be extended."

Several days is a pretty short life for SSD...and longer than i want my RAM to last ;)

Re:Not there yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26759263)

How much latency does that algorithm add? They are only testing one bit. Won't a controller and the wear-reducing slow it down a fair amount?

Not really, since the wear-leveling will generally be done in blocks, and the speed-up is per byte/word/whatever.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757557)

Flash memory has lifetimes in the 10s of thousands of operations. Wear leveling algorithms are used to lessen the impact of this limitation.

These devices see operation similar to Hard Drives in that data is often written to them once then left there for a considerable period of time. If you were to attempt to use them in a fashion similar to RAM that would be a bad thing, as they would quickly wear out.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757731)

Wear leveling [wikipedia.org] ! It's been around for ages and used on all recent flash drives. I can't believe how many people seem to have never heard of it.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (2, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757793)

Let's say they make this into a thumb drive. Now, let's say that you read/write the entire drive twice a day. That's four operations. 18,000/4/365 gives you twelve years of this. Even if you are filling and then erasing the drive ten times every day it is still two and a half years of use. Less than you can do with current flash memory, but fine as a proof-of-concept.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (1)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758863)

CD-RW will only last for 100 writes. Have you ever seen a failed CD-RW? I didn't. Even if you had a nanotube drive that you completely overwrote every hour, it would last for 2 years. An USB drive with 100k writes would last for 11 years. In real life scenarios drives are rarely written to more than a few times a day, and certainly not in the same places. This can be further reduced with wear leveling filesystems. The only reason we don't use those widely is that it's extremely hard to write a filesystem driver for Windows.

Re:Low OPs lifetime (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26765389)

CD-RW will only last for 100 writes. Have you ever seen a failed CD-RW? I didn't.
I used packet writing quite a bit for a while and I think I killed a few CDRWs with it over the years when I used it.

However the vendors fucked up on thier software. Adaptec and ahead came up with incompatible packet writing software and even if they had been compatible bundled copies of nero didn't generally come with incd. So as the burner vendors switched to bundling nero packet writing died out at least among those of us too tight to buy burning software retail (and who wouldn't or couldn't pirate it)

Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (3, Funny)

JoshDM (741866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757191)

Jay Garrick isn't as fast as Wally West or Barry Allen...

Re:Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757319)

Jay Garrick isn't as fast as Wally West or Barry Allen...

Would probably have to agree...

_______________________________________
http://perpetualcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Re:Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758013)

Yeah but are they faster than superman or Silver Surfer?

Re:Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758199)

Yeah but are they faster than superman or Silver Surfer?

I can't believe I am replying to this. Superman is faster than The Flash. Even though The Flash is very fast (so fast, that he can accelerate his particles and "vibrate" through solid material), Superman has the speed advantage. Unfortunatly, when the two race, a bad guy like Lex Luthor invariably tries to do evil, which causes Superman to stop early and save the day.

Re:Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26778777)

Superman is faster than The Flash.

You're showing your age. Pre-crisis Superman was faster than the Flash, post-crisis Superman most certainly is not.

Re:Well, which Flash are we talking about here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26812085)

Yes, but which crisis? And which Superman? After a few sucky DC extravaganzas, this still isn't properly resolved

Wait, I don't understand this Slashdot story. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757201)

Where's the Australian connection?

I thought all Slashdot stories were required to have one now.

Regressing (4, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757243)

ENIAC was orders of magnitude faster. These guys do 100 nanoseconds/nanotube -> 100 seconds/tube!

informative marEmare (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757441)

800 mhz machine us the courtesy resound as fitting Comprehensive I thoug4t it was my Java IRC client channelS, you might SHARE, THIS NEWS session and join in Which allows

Nantero... (2, Interesting)

katz (36161) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757517)

What ever happened to Nantero? Weren't working on this a few years ago?

Analog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757651)

Are we going back to analog?

Re:Analog (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26760819)

Since "digital" usually is an interpretation of analog, I'd get used to seeing both of them around for a long time.

So, how long to build a fab plant? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757879)

Say for about 1 million units a year, with continuous production ...

What, you can't get the loan for a fab plant for this non-production memory?

And it will take 4-5 years to build it?

I'm thinking we better make the plant design fusion powered ... cause it's going to be a while, and we might as well be pie in the sky about it.

You can have my iron oxide coated plates... (1)

Cprossu (736997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758201)

(works up an old man's voice)
When you pry them from my cold, dead hands!

All that's left to see is how reliable it ends up being, and what outside forces can cause a data change and how easily.
Flash is only now starting to approach the reliability that it was advertised to have inherently when it was developed, so sorry for being a stick-in-the-mud.

mod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758493)

new core is going troubles of Walnut and some 0f the First, you have to about a project the developer 4.1BSD product,

NANO NANO by morkfromork (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758673)

Need I say more?

Nano-micro (1)

BubbaDoom (1353181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758775)

Can't we keep the same unit when comparing something? e.g. " ... that can be written in just 100 nanoseconds. Existing flash memory takes 100,000 nanoseconds"

Ethel Memory (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26758951)

They need to talk to my wife about ethel memory. She can recall my most famous screw-ups from 20 years ago, faster than any technology.

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26760531)

this was meant to be a reply to the 'Nano Tubes?!?!?!' thread

OR.. (1)

qreeves (1363277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26767619)

To be totally OT; 0.01 nanobits per nanosecond.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?