Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mark45 View Post
    Computers with 512MB are pretty much a thing of the past and getting fewer and memory is dirt cheap.
    I'd like them to focus on stuff that matters today and will matter in the future, rather on an issue becoming increasingly irrelevant.

    And btw, don't be so cheap, buy your parents some RAM it's really cheap nowadays while playing a central role.
    I am not cheap. The computer works fine, so we don't throw it away. If people say it's an exercise in macho behaviour, then I have to slightly agree. Installing Linux on it made it much more useful despite it's aging processing capabilities. So, therefore, we continue using it.

    However, it doesn't support SSE2. This is a hardware capability. Only Office 2013 and Windows 8 have a hard requirement on that specific piece of technology.

    So, therefore (and in my opinion), we should continue using it until it cannot sufficiently handle tasks that only Windows 8 and Office 2013 can handle (as an example of course). Because THAT, again in my opinion, justifies a hardware upgrade.

    As for BO$$, necro-lover and frantaylor: Please, take your fingers out of your ears and stop doing 'lalalala' while at it mkay? Please respect each others opinion, how boldly stated it may appear to you.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
      I am saying that for games fglrx is the best. I am also saying that it should be installed by default since most users new to linux don't know about it and could end up with the impression that linux has worse performance than windows.
      fglrx is very buggy and unstable in comparison. Would you really like new users get the image that linux is just as crashy as Windows, only because of AMD's blob being preinstalled?

      You should also quantify your game argument. If I see 50% of the fps, using 0.5% of the lines of code, its efficiency beats that of fglrx by a huge amount.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
        As for BO$$, necro-lover and frantaylor: Please, take your fingers out of your ears and stop doing 'lalalala' while at it mkay? Please respect each others opinion, how boldly stated it may appear to you.
        Oh come on, troll-on-troll battles are always fun to watch

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by oleid View Post
          No, actually it's useful for playing __your__ games
          Exactly this is what Iím trying to tell him. But he thinks "games" is a objective fixed quantitative definition. But in fact he is wrong. Every people do have different needs and they do have different definitions of the words they use and many people really play computer-games with the radeon driver.

          But he thinks he is GOD and he do have the power to judge like alpha and omega.

          In fact he do only have size madness.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            Which is why I was saying that AMD should focus on fglrx and not put resources in the open source driver. More people working on fixing fglrx will have more impact than more people working on radeon. You may see 50% of the fps, using 0.5% of the lines of code, but for the other 50% perhaps the 99.5% are required. Don't assume that AMD is full of idiots and open source full of geniuses. Maybe that code is there for a reason, not just to take up space.
            Really dude I think exactly this: "Don't assume that AMD is full of idiots and open source full of geniuses. "

            I watched the activityís of the catalyst for years and tested it on multiple computers with multiple workloads... and its just crap!
            You can use closed source with "Nvidia" but in fact you can't use closed-source with amd.
            I know this because I use nvidia cards before i use amd cards on linux.

            Why? simple: They(amd) give a shit about your needs in playing "games" on linux ...... I really don't go into details now because its pointless to waste any energy in this. (Catalyst=workstation driver for CATIA)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by necro-lover View Post
              Really dude I think exactly this: "Don't assume that AMD is full of idiots and open source full of geniuses. "

              I watched the activityís of the catalyst for years and tested it on multiple computers with multiple workloads... and its just crap!
              You can use closed source with "Nvidia" but in fact you can't use closed-source with amd.
              I know this because I use nvidia cards before i use amd cards on linux.

              Why? simple: They(amd) give a shit about your needs in playing "games" on linux ...... I really don't go into details now because its pointless to waste any energy in this. (Catalyst=workstation driver for CATIA)
              This whole thread has been HIJACKED by LOSERS who are arguing about whose video card is better.

              JESUS FUCKING CHRIST on EVERY computer the onus is on THE USER to make sure the computer is not trying to use more memory than it has.

              If you are PLAYING A DAMNED VIDEO GAME and you run out of memory it is USER ERROR PURE AND SIMPLE.

              What the ARTICLE IS ACTUALLY ABOUT is what the kernel is supposed to do in situations where there is NOT a ham-fisted computter user who thinks they can get two pulls of draft in one glass. It's about when your mail server or your database server starts to thrash, and what the kernel should do to make sure that critical services are still responsive.

              The ONLY "critical service" on a video gamer''s system is the one that calculates how much money to extract from the sucker.

              Okay now go ahead and brag some more about how your video card is the same one that Boeing engineers use to design battery packs. Yeah that's really impressive. Better yet go back to your video games and stop pretending that your experience is relevant.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                I actually have the opposite experience. The AMD driver works (worked) just fine on my computer until I upgraded to Ubuntu 12.10 and had to use radeon driver. I knew when upgrading that I would have to use the radeon driver but since the damn linux kernel has a buggy driver for my network card I hoped that after upgrading that bug would go. It didn't and now I have to use the wireless card exclusively (instead of my wired card) and also can't play games anymore. Yay linux! Good thing that the kernel is solid and never crashes. Rock solid and full of shitty drivers that don't work.
                The linux kernel is only solid and never crashes because its opensource!

                now turn your brain on and imagine a graphik driver in the style of the opensource linux kernel............ it will be solid and never crash......

                but you prefer to talk bullshit about a magic closed source shit driver.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                  JESUS FUCKING CHRIST on EVERY computer the onus is on THE USER to make sure the computer is not trying to use more memory than it has.
                  So instead of waiting for oom_killer to kill enough random processes to free up memory, users should open top instead? Alrighty then, prime sysadmin tips from frantaylor.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                    You are a fucking idiot: The linux kernel is only solid and never crashes because its opensource! I was being ironic you moron. And if something is solid and never crashes it's not because it's open source stupid idiot. There are a lot of kernels used in serious real time systems that are not open source and still never crash. Contrary to your hallucinations the linux kernel is not the shit when it comes to programming.
                    o now its clear you are a windows user brainwashed by microsoft FUD.

                    go play with your Xbox!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                      What, you don't like random processes that may or may not be important being killed?
                      Hint: there are ways to influence what processes get reaped first...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                        It's interesting that the kernel devs have to come up with ways to optimize memory usage instead of the programmers no longer being the pigs they are and write programs that use less memory. It's an insult when I open a document and it eats more than 100 MB RAM or rhythmbox eating 63 MB right now... And don't bring me the functionality argument. it does the same thing it did 10 years ago while eating more memory. It's the programmers that suck.
                        RAM is cheap.

                        From my experience, RAM usage seems to be relative to your total amount of RAM (when booting Xubuntu on my netbook [1GB of RAM], I have 200MB RAM used -- on my desktop [12GB of RAM], about 360MB used, with the same programs running [Xfce, Xfwm, X...]).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                          RAM is cheap.
                          Still not a good point to waste money on it. And why not use the RAM you have more efficiently? You always benefit.

                          Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                          From my experience, RAM usage seems to be relative to your total amount of RAM (when booting Xubuntu on my netbook [1GB of RAM], I have 200MB RAM used -- on my desktop [12GB of RAM], about 360MB used, with the same programs running [Xfce, Xfwm, X...]).
                          That's odd... Are both 64bit or both 32bit? 64bit uses more RAM for the same code I believe. Furthermore, did you exclude caches? Linux caches more data in RAM if it's free.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            wrong wrong wrong

                            Originally posted by Calinou View Post
                            RAM is cheap.
                            you are WRONG

                            In embedded systems the RAM is the most expensive part of the whole computer. I have an embedded system where the single RAM chip costs more than the entire rest of the computer.

                            In embedded systems you only get a fixed amount of RAM. All the money in the world will not get you more RAM if there are no remaining chip select pins available on your SoC.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                              Still not a good point to waste money on it. And why not use the RAM you have more efficiently? You always benefit.
                              It's hardly a waste of money (20 euros for 4GB), applications use more and more RAM today, deal with it.

                              Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
                              That's odd... Are both 64bit or both 32bit? 64bit uses more RAM for the same code I believe. Furthermore, did you exclude caches? Linux caches more data in RAM if it's free.
                              I excluded cache, yes, both machines run 64 bit too.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                                you are WRONG

                                In embedded systems the RAM is the most expensive part of the whole computer. I have an embedded system where the single RAM chip costs more than the entire rest of the computer.

                                In embedded systems you only get a fixed amount of RAM. All the money in the world will not get you more RAM if there are no remaining chip select pins available on your SoC.
                                Not only in embedded. Once a system gets old enough to outlive demand for RAM appropriate for it's bus/speed/rate, then the price goes much higher than newer stuff. I.e. I want some RAM for an older laptop that is no longer very common.
                                Crucial 8GB DDR2 SO-DIMM Kit €118
                                versus
                                Crucial 8GB DDR3 SO-DIMM Kit €41
                                Crucial 16GB DDR3 SO-DIMM Kit €79

                                Edit: I take that back, a bit anyway. It's not that the cost goes up. It's just that the new gen is much, much cheaper.
                                Last edited by kiwi_kid_aka_bod; 01-23-2013, 09:46 AM. Reason: Better info

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X