128-bit Operating systemsWhen?
>>108942108Usecase?
>>108942111/thread
>>108942108We already have that.
>>108942155Technically true, we can execute 512bit instructions.
Bro my riemann and collatz bounds would break at that scale
>>108942108when amount of installed RAM starts exceeding 16 exabytes.
>>108942160Couldn't 32-bit operating systems also execute like 128-bit SIMD instructions and such?
>>108942209yep OP meant address space awareness
>>108942175modern 64-bit limited to 48-bit memory
>>108942213wasn't that PAE?
>>108942213yeah, so it can be expanded without switching os bitness for a long time.
>>108942213we'll have to do with a maximum of 262144GB of ram, for now
>>108942273That is actually a number I can see becoming a problem for certain applications.
>>108942111AI
>>10894210864 bits should be enough for anybody
>>108942225itll take that long to change software to take advantage of it.
with ram prices going the way they are, a return to 32bit seems more likely.
>>1089426938 bit pls
>>108942160that is absolutely not how that works
>>108942111A looooot of RAM for loading a medium sized CAD model.
>>108942108Humanity is unlikely to ever need a 128-bit operating system for everyday or commercial use. The driving force for the 32-to-64-bit jump was physical memory exhaustion; however, a 64-bit OS can already address 16 exabytes (16 million terabytes) of RAM, an astronomical limit well beyond current computer architecture and planetary data storage needs.
>>108942273how many electron apps can you run with that
>>108942111Object bounds checking metadata built into pointers.
>>108946331about 6-7
we aren't even using all of the 64 bits yet, probably never.
>>108942108When 64-bit Unix time overflows in 292 billion years.
>>108942108When you need more than 16 Exabytes of RAM, you repulsive frog spamming cocksucker. You're like a walking abortion.
>>108942273>262TBthat's really not that much. what do supercomputers with more than that do? many exist right now.
>>108947017I don't know much about super computers but AFAIK they're just a bunch of computers working together. So that's why they can have like 700 TB but they're still 64-bit.
>>108947179You need orders of magnitude more RAM than that to exceed 64-bit allocation. Where did this dumb shit 700TB measure come from?
>>108942108When we have 128-bit CPUs. Currently, there is a design spec for a 128-bit RISC-V instruction set, but there are no physical CPUs which implement such a spec. Why do we not have 128-bit CPUs? I will tell you what my networking and systems programming professor told me 10 years ago while I was working on my master's degree:>Suppose you had a 128-bit CPU, and enough memory that such a CPU would be required (that is, over 16 exabytes). How long would it take to write a value to each memory address, once?Basically, before we can justify being able to address more than 16 exabytes of RAM, we first need to imagine using that much memory. Right now, the fastest memory bandwidth can write up to 4 terabytes per second. It would take 46 days to write a value to every address once while doing literally nothing else.>>108947017The most powerful supercomputer currently, El Capitain, is made of a bunch of compute nodes that each have 512 GB of RAM. The whole supercomputer has over a petabyte of RAM.
>>108947245>512 GB of RAMHuh, I was expecting way more than that from the most powerful supercomputer.
