16 TB of memory

Discussion in 'macOS' started by DrummerB, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. DrummerB macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    #1
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    And, on that note, Windows 7 Home Premium has a 16GB limit. So watch out you Mac Pro users! Go for the Pro or Ultimate instead (192GB limit).
     
  3. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #3
    Finally, the proof I've been searching for!!!!!:rolleyes:
     
  4. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #4
    Do you think I should get the 2.53 or 2.66 to go along with the 16TB in memory.
     
  5. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #5
    Why don't you search the forums first????????? UGH.
     
  6. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #6
    It's proof of nothing really, since the hardware won't support it.

    But, if you insist, and need 32 cores and 191TB of memory, it can be done.

    EDIT: I totally forgot how snappy Safari would be with 16TB of RAM.
     
  7. Mal macrumors 603

    Mal

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Orlando
    #7
    Yep, hardware can't support it, but the software is now future-proofed in that aspect.

    No practical benefit right now to supporting that much, but no downside either, so why not?

    jW
     
  8. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #8
    By the time we get to using 16TB (I mean we're scraping the edge of 8GB being used at the desk now) of memory at the desktop, the processors will likely be no longer supported which means a new kernel, so none of the current apps will work. Who knows, but who even cares really?
     
  9. DrummerB thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    #9
    Err, I'm pretty sure it's just a (funny) typo. :cool:
    It probably should say 16 GB.
     
  10. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #10
  11. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #11
    Its probably not a typo as the Mac Pro can take up to 64GB of RAM.
     
  12. lancestraz macrumors 6502a

    lancestraz

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Location:
    RI
    #12
    It's not a typo.
     
  13. DrummerB thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    #13
    Oh, I didn't know that :eek:
     
  14. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #14
    It is because of the 64 bit, which means 2^64 addresses can be accessed.
    That's why 32 bit has a limit of 2^32 byte (4GB).


    64 bit computers can address 16 ExaBytes (EB) in theory.

    2^64/1024/1024/1024/1024/1024/1024 = 16 EB
    or 1.844674407370955e+19 Bytes.


    1 EB = 1048576 TB.

    So the current Mac OS X version is not really up to date as it seems. ;)
     
  15. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #15
    64bit OSs can support up to 16 Exabytes of RAM. The 16TiB limit is still less than your CPU can deal with. It's not a typo.
     
  16. CylonGlitch macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #16
    There is a bit of a downside. The OS memory management unit has to be able to handle all of this memory. That would mean keeping larger pointers around and other internal tables (trying to be vague here) to process all of this memory if it existed. What this means is that the MMU may not be as efficient as it could be if it has less memory to process. I'm guessing that is one of the reasons that MS has chosen to only support less memory. I am assuming that Apple did testing and found that it didn't make that much difference, so bit the bullet now and then they don't have to worry about it for a few more years (or a lot more then a few).
     
  17. 0dev macrumors 68040

    0dev

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #17
    Only 16TB? What do I do with this 32TB of Crucial RAM I just got then? :eek:
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    16TB is a Nehalem limit. You can have bigger images with Itanium and Opteron, as shown above.
     
  19. enberg macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    #19
    It's just too bad the x86-64bit virtual memory range limit is a mere 48 bits which leaves us with a pitiful 256 TB.
     
  20. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #20
    How ever will we cope?:)
     
  21. lancestraz macrumors 6502a

    lancestraz

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Location:
    RI
    #21
    In thirty years you might be saying that seriously. :D
     
  22. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #22
    I doubt I'll be using Snow Leopard in thirty years, however.
     
  23. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
    Apple might start recycling codenames after Jobs is one with the worms. :p
     
  24. katananz macrumors newbie

    katananz

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    #24
    Probably not future proofed much if by the time 16TB becomes a reality, 10.6 would be incompatible with all the other hardware and be seriously outdated and replaced countless times
     
  25. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #25
    Apple could make a NUMA system in the near future and 16TB would be really small.
     

Share This Page