HP's so-called 'unreliable computing' circuit design will allow
nanotechnology-based computing to replace today's semiconductors and will become
pervasive in the coming decade, analysts have predicted.
Martin Reynolds, a vice president at Gartner's
Dataquest
organisation, welcomed HP's recent announcement that it
has developed nanotechnology circuit designs that use a cross-bar architecture
which accommodates faults in the circuits thereby boosting production yield and
reducing prices.
"The HP research highlights an emerging and welcome trend that will become
pervasive in the coming decade: the movement toward what Gartner calls
'unreliable computing'," said Reynolds.
"This seemingly paradoxical term refers to the ability to assemble devices
that do not always function correctly into entirely reliable systems through
redundancy and self-correcting designs. This philosophy will extend from the
smallest devices to the largest systems."
According to Reynolds, the value of HP's manufacturing approach lies in its
ability to produce 10 or even 100 times as many unreliable devices as reliable
ones.
The overhead required to create a reliable system from unreliable building
blocks is high, perhaps consuming a quarter of the devices, but the overall
system will be "dramatically more capable" than systems built using a
conventional architecture.
Gartner predicts that the architecture will be an essential tool for
manufacturers of smaller devices, helping to achieve the continuing price and
performance improvements predicted by Moore's Law.
However, the analyst firm noted that 'unreliable computing' also applies to
large systems. Google, for example, uses low-cost components to assemble a very
large computing infrastructure.
Gartner estimates that this approach allows Google to deliver resources at
one-tenth the cost of a typical server infrastructure.
Enterprises are advised to recognise that 'unreliable computing', whether at
the circuit or server level, will become pervasive throughout IT architectures
in the coming decade.
Do you agree?
Have your say on this article