La plupart des utilisateurs passent de l’informatique 32 bits à l’informatique 64 bits pour dépasser la limite de 4 Go de RAM, mais commentloin pouvez-vous dépasser cette limite une fois que vous êtes entré dans le monde des ordinateurs 64 bits?
La séance de questions-réponses d'aujourd'hui nous est offerte par la sous-division SuperUser de Stack Exchange, un groupe de sites Web de questions-réponses dirigé par la communauté. Image de Petr Kratochvil.
La question
Lecteur superutilisateur KingNestor est curieux de savoir combien de RAM un ordinateur 64 bits peut contenir:
I’m reading through my computer architecture book and I see that in an x86, 32bit CPU, the program counter is 32 bit.
So, the number of bytes it can address is 2^32 bytes, or 4GB. So it makes sense to me that most 32 bit machines limit the amount of ram to 4gb (ignoring PAE).
Am I right in assuming that a 64bit machine could theoretically address 2^64 bytes, or 16 exabytes of ram?!
Exabytes vous dites? Maintenant, maintenant, ne soyons pas gourmands. Nous serions heureux de commencer avec un téraoctet ou deux.
La réponse
Les réponses à l'enquête de KingNestor constituent un mélange intéressant de considérations pratiques et théoriques. Matt Ball entre directement dans la réponse théorique:
Theoretically: 16.8 million terabytes. In practice: your computer case is a little too small to fit all that RAM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Limitations_of_practical_processors
Conrad Dean a expliqué à quel point il serait totalement impraticable de maximiser la limite de RAM théorique en utilisant la technologie actuelle:
To supplement Matt Ball’s answer, the current largest stick of RAM I can find on one particular online retailer is 32GB. It would take 32 of these to reach 1 terabyte. At about a half inch per stick this brings us to a devoted 16 inches of space on your motherboard for a terabyte of commercial ram. To reach 16.8 million terabytes would require a motherboard 4,242.42 miles. The distance from LA to NYC is about 2141 miles, so the motherboard would stretch across the country and back to accomodate that much RAM.
Clearly this is impractical.
How about we didn’t put our RAM all in one row like on most motherboards, but instead placed them side-by-side. I want to say the average stick of ram is about six inches long, so if we allow a half an inch for width, you can have a square unit of 12 sticks of ram in a 6 inch square. Let’s call this square a RAM-tile. A RAM-tile then holds 384GB of RAM. To reach the required 16.8 million terabytes in 384GB tiles would take 44.8 million tiles. Let’s be messy, and use square root of that to conclude that this will fit in a square of 6693 by 6694 tiles, or 13,386 by 13,388 feet, which is close enough to 2.5 feet squared, enough to cover downtown Seattle in shadow, as if they didn’t already have enough to complain about.
Enfin, David Schwartz note que même la limite théorique est dépassée par l'architecture actuelle du processeur:
Note that no existing x86 64-bit processor can actually do this. Their caches don’t have enough tag bits, their address buses don’t have enough width, and so on. 46-bits (8TB) is the maximum for many modern x86 CPUs.
Avez-vous quelque chose à ajouter à l'explication? Sound off dans les commentaires. Voulez-vous lire plus de réponses d'autres utilisateurs de Stack Exchange doués en technologie? Découvrez le fil de discussion complet ici.
