From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,124905131f269735 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-27 09:47:08 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp From: "Dale Pennington" Subject: Re: gnat and heap size X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e264771.hv.boeing.com Message-ID: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: The Boeing Company X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 References: <1001442590.557811@news.drenet.dnd.ca> <%26s7.4950$ev2.8194@www.newsranger.com> <9oqs5k$jjq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9osjpt$a5l$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9osq5a$crn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9ov8a4$b71$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:26:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13438 Date: 2001-09-27T16:26:22+00:00 List-Id: You might note, that is one sugar cube was one terrabyte (i.e. 10**12 bytes), then it would take a MegaSugarCube with approximately 262 sugar cubes to a side to hold 2**64 bytes of data. I am not sure of the dimensions of a sugar cube, but if one were to assume a 0.25" sugar cube, that would be be about 5 1/2" per side cube. Note too bad for a fixed site, but a but large for a laptop. "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:9ov8a4$b71$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > Sure. But assuming that if you've got an ability to address 2**64 of > anything (bytes, sectors, whatever) then there must be something there > physically you want to retrieve. If its bytes, then you'd need something > storing the binary states of the bits. Presuming that you had a means of > detecting some sort of state change in a single atom, then you'd need 2**64 > * 8 (or whatever your byte size is, for those about to observe that a byte > need not be 8 bits) atoms. That might start approaching something a little > too big to get into a laptop. :-) > > I wouldn't mind having a 64 bit address - it would allow you to dedicate > whole banks of the address space to various purposes - but actually having > 2*64 bytes available to address may be just a wee bit beyond current > technology. > > I like holographic memory and remember reading about research on such > devices several years ago. I'm wondering why it never made it out of the > lab? Too expensive? Too hard to produce? Too unreliable? Something must have > got in its way to the market because its been a long time since I heard tell > of the devices working in labs and I don't see any on the shelves at > CompUSA... Hmmmmm..... > > MDC > -- > Marin David Condic > Senior Software Engineer > Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com > Enabling the digital revolution > e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com > Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ > > > "Pascal Obry" wrote in message > news:ulmj1fyac.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > > > "Marin David Condic" writes: > > > > > I doubt that it would be practically possible to construct a disk big > > > enough to hold 2**64 bytes of data as a result. :-) > > > > Well well... Somebody said that only 3 or 4 ENIAC would be needed in the > > world because it was so powerful... > > > > >