🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5100120@ccvaxa> srb@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>
>Saying that "you only need as much memory as you can clear in
>a second (or some similar measure)" implicitly assumes lots of
>things:
>....
>    2)	The access pattern frequencies to memory are reasonably near
>	exponential.  I.e., a minority of locations is accessed
>	most frequently, with increasingly smaller frequency of
>	access to an increasingly large fraction of the memory
>	up to a cumulative (100% - epsilon).
>...
>It is not hard to think of real applications where one or more of
>the above implicit assumptions will be violated.  Large
>data bases, tables of pre-computed cryptographic or scientific
>functions, real-time tasks where access cannot be predicted but
>the data is needed in real-time, and main store backed only by
>a slow-seek-time laser disk come to mind.  I'm sure people like
>Hector Garcia-Molina can list some more of these for us.

Most scientific codes I'm familiar with violate this second assumption.
The entire memory requirement of a Hydro code for example is referenced
with equal frequency in a cyclical manner (once per time-step).

J. Giles
Los Alamos