| 1 |
On Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:47:53 +0200 Alan McKinnon |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> <alan@××××××××××××××××.za> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Thursday 04 October 2007, Liviu Andronic wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > And later on: "Now one problem is |
| 9 |
> > > left. Even with normal RAM a well funded organisation can get the |
| 10 |
> > > contents after the system is powered off. With the modern SDRAM it's |
| 11 |
> > > even worse, where the data stays on the RAM permanently until new |
| 12 |
> > > data is written. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Pray tell, how does RAM manage to retain data when the power is off? |
| 15 |
> > It's either six transistors or one transistor and a cap per cell = |
| 16 |
> > not persistent. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> In theory, for the one transistor and one cap case, you have a loaded |
| 19 |
> cap that will take "forever" losing its load, won't it? But in |
| 20 |
> practice, I think, that's not realistic. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
in practice, the ram has to refreshed every few cycles (on reason why it is |
| 23 |
slow) because it is loosing its load so fast. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In practice, after power is cut, everything in ram is lost. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
But not the stuff in swap.... |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives