If you want to cram as much RAM in a server as practical, you'll currently be using 32GB LRDIMM's which currently cost ~$600 ($20/GB). Some dual-processor motherboards will take 24 of them (3 ranks * 4 channels * 2 processors) for a 768 GB total: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/xeon/c600/x9d...
(The 1.5TB description for the board presumes the soon to be released 64GB LRDIMMS.)
This would be $15000 for just the 768GB of RAM. Let's guess another $5K for the rest, so $20K for the machine. At 20GB of dedicated RAM per VPS, you can fit ~40 of them on the machine. $20K / 40 = $500. Since this ignores power and connectivity, I think you'll be waiting a while for a $5 month plan. Although perhaps you could overprovision and swap out a lot?
Viewed alternatively, the sweet spot for selling RAM does not involve putting as much of it as you can in a single machine. You'd cut the cost of your RAM per GB a lot (down to about $10/GB) if you stuck with older lower density RAM put a bunch of low price blade servers in a single box.
You'd need a real nifty virtualization platform to oversell RAM like we currently oversell bandwidth and cpu time.
A high performance swap farm might be the way to go with things, but things break when everyone starts using huge pages.
I could bring my startup from 10 to 2 hosts and have better performance.
The real problem is that gobs of RAM isn't _cheap_. I wish that DDR4 would make DDR3 less expensive, but as manufacturers switch to making DDR4, I expect the price to rise.
edit: Which is to say, I'd be happy if it became possible in the near future to get laptops with 48GB of of DD3 and junky Dell rackmounts with 256GB of RAM for today's prices of 16/64GB respectively.
The reason laptops still come with just 4GB of RAM has little to do with the cost of RAM. Each gig you add reduces battery life significantly.
I run multiple VMs on my machine continuously (a win7 VM and a couple other linux VMs). The machine has dual SSDs and it's super freaking fast.
DDR4 can be twice as fast as DDR3. The potential of getting that performance is pretty exciting to some people.
The BIOS screen pic in the article shows system memory speed of 2134 MT/s, which is equivalent to the high end of DDR3.
Emphasis mine. DDR3 was theoretically supposed to be twice as fast as DDR2, but real-world benchmarks showed nowhere near that level of improvement.
> For those in the know, there currently isn't a publicly released CPU/chipset combination that supports DDR4 memory
384Gb is 256Gb + 128Gb or 3 * 128Gb - simple powers of two stuff going on here to arrive at 384Gb.
284Gb is 256Gb + 16Gb + 8Gb + 4Gb - or - 256Gb + 32Gb - 4Gb where the 4Gb is used for something such as video ram.
That is not simple powers of two.
They're obviously under the impression that a new generation of CPU+chipset provides some degree of Thunderbolt support that is lacking in server components currently on the market: either that Intel's requiring Thunderbolt controllers to be included on the motherboard, or that the CPU or chipset provides a Thunderbolt controller.
384 GiB isn't whopping, 16 TiB would be considering there are 8 TiB boxes right now.