|
|
|
|
|
by cellularmitosis
468 days ago
|
|
While I did make a couple of cosmetic edits within a few minutes of posting (before there were any replies), even the original was referring to the speed of the memory ("on-chip"), not its size. You misunderstood my post, and I don't appreciate the tone of your reply. |
|
While I believe you that you meant to write about the different performance profile of on chip memory, that's not what you did at the time I wrote my reply. What you actually did write was how 512 GB of RAM might revolutionize i.e. database servers. Which I addressed.
And if you hadn't written that, I wouldn't have written my comment either, because I'm not a database developer that could speculate on performance side-grades of such kind (less memory, but closer to the CPU)