[beeflet]

Holy cow thats cool. So It's like an expensive nonvolatile replacement for volatile memory. I wonder if in the future there could be computers with no sense of "memory vs storage", that it would all just be a single contiguous "memory".

Instead of turning off the computer and hibernating, you just turn off the LCD backlight and the IO.

[jasomill]

While implemented virtually rather than physically, two well-known (and very different) examples of systems that unify memory and secondary storage under a single addressing scheme are Multics (1969) and the IBM System/38 (1978).

Note that the present-day IBM i née AS/400 is a direct descendent of the System/38.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-level_store

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/363095.363139

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/system38/G580-0237-1_IBM_System...

https://archive.org/details/insideas4000000solt/page/171/mod...

[grishka]

You would still need to turn the CPU off though. Or do you suggest replacing the registers and caches and all other volatile memory with this stuff?

[soganess]

I'm not sure what the performance/persistence implications of this (FRAM) actually are...

But to your point, simply copying the processor state to a known location in FRAM (0xFFFFFFF0) and having the start routine read state from that location seem like a very low overhead solution to the problem.

How long would it really take to do something your computer does as part of preemptive multi-tasking? Nanoseconds? Milliseconds? We are talking about $order(hundred) of instructions

[gmueckl]

This may work on something with the complexity of a microcontroller or SoC, but becomes tricky beyond that. Any peripherals, especially removable ones would still need to be rediscovered and reinitialized on boot. Network connections may have died/reset while the system was off.

Essentially, this scheme has all the major complications of resuming from sleep/hibernation in practice.

[mananaysiempre]

Because it is, for the most part, suspend to RAM aka S3.

[saati]

It would burn out in a few hours.

[Retr0id]

Why? FRAM has extremely high write endurance.

[EGG_CREAM]

I did notice from the article that reading is destructive, so every time you read (or at least every time you read a 0), you have to re-write it out. I wonder how much that affects the practical durability.

[kens]

Yes, since reads destroy the data, each read causes a write. The chip will handle 100 trillion read/writes. So yes, the chip will wear out rapidly if you do a lot of reads.

[jonathrg]

I can't really think of a use case where this could plausibly come up. It would take 3 years if you read the same memory location (uncached) 1 million times a second.

[Retr0id]

By what process does the chip degrade?

[kens]

There are multiple factors that limit the number of writes that FRAMs can handle: changes in crystal structure as Ti ions replace O, mobile ions collecting at grain boundaries, and something to do with 90º domains.

[nayuki]

Reading destroys the stored value; it doesn't necessarily destroy the physical material.

Reading from memory is already destructive in DRAM (capacitor gets discharged), magnetic core memory (need to alter the magnetization state to read out how much energy was needed), and probably other technologies as well.