Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: VERY LARGE main memories: crypt
Message-ID: <5100121@ccvaxa>
Date: Thu, 4-Sep-86 17:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.5100121
Posted: Thu Sep  4 17:51:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Sep-86 23:05:47 EDT
References: <15505@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU:15505:ccvaxa:5100121:000:836
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Sep  4 16:51:00 1986


>As I think I've mentioned before, it is believed that there are
>approximately 2^200 electrons in the universe.  Since it is unlikely that
>anybody would want to reference more things than there are electrons in the
>universe, 200 bits seems like a good upper bound for the length of a memory
>address.
>
>Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy

At last, an upper limit on the number of address bits! And I thought that
the sequence 16, 32, 64, 128... would continue forever. But hold on - 200
bits will be the address size for one process's virtual address space;
how many processes are you going to have, ie. how big will process id +
virtual address for the TLB be?

I'm smiling. Aren't you?

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms