Content deleted Content added
m Move new comment to the bottom proper |
→Advertisement: reply |
||
Line 81:
First, there are several competitors for NVM, but one calls it NVDIMM, which is by accident also referenced (i.e.g, Viking). Second, the sentence is not correct. Large vendors as Oracle, MS, and SAP are currently looking into NVM, but no one expects results the next two years since "real NVM" (not RAM with a battery) is not expected in mass production before 2014/15.
If you need more information just ask Prof. Pavlo of Carnegie-Mellon, he's working on NVM techniques for in-memory databases. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] ([[User talk:141.89.226.146|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agreed. I have removed the link to Viking. In the future, please [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and just edit.
:The whole article is plastered with stuff about non-volatile memory and gives the wrong idea as if NVRAM solutions were commonplace. It appears that most of this bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In-memory_database&diff=553412377&oldid=552374260 was added by user Computermemorynerd], who also wrote the biased article on [[NVDIMM]] (which I already partially cleaned up).
:I lack sufficient knowledge on this subject, but it does sound like vaporware. Should we just delete everything added?
:Is NVDIMM a vendor-specific term? In that case, should NVDIMM simply redirect to [[NVRAM]] (which is presumably vendor-neutral)? -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |||