Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,635

    Default Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

    Last week on the Linux kernel mailing list was a proposal for an Aggressive Low Memory Booster...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI3OTI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    945

    Default

    ..with limited amounts of RAM.
    Not interesting for desktop/server users, and even for many smartphones, especially the upcoming ones. Skip.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Not interesting for desktop/server users, and even for many smartphones, especially the upcoming ones. Skip.
    I think my parents' old 512MB box, which is still in intensive use, will benefit . Running chrome + wine(Office 2007) + vlc takes a lot of RAM already...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    945

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by mark45; 01-20-2013 at 03:57 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Memory is soldered on my NAS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,934

    Default

    Ultrabook with 4Gb of soldered on RAM that I sometimes max out when I pull open a lot of Firefox tabs so this may help me a fair bit.

    If nothing else its helping the mobile / embedded market with little to no downside for desktop/server so I dont see the big deal. This just helps the idea that Linux is an "anywhere" OS. Highend server? CPU Scheduler scales perfectly. Low end mobile? Low RAM requirements and CPU scheduler scales back down perfectly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Your argumentation is not very systematically and consistently because in another part of the forum you argument is BIG FAT SUPER LARGE IS BEST ALL OTHER IS SHIT:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...eatures/page23
    And now your argument is: slim and light and ram efficiency is best all other is a insult.

    The Logical failure is: the Radeon driver need LESS RAM and is more Light and more SLIM and do have a much higher efficiency if you calculate the lines of codes to the result because the catalyst do have ~40-50 million lines of code its a super "fatt" ugly pig!

    In my point of view you are just a idiot and this is a *statement of FACT* not an insult.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Quote 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...]).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote 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.
    You just ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, are you???

    You think the whole universe revolves around you and your desktop

    You have no mental abilities to comprehend the concept of an embedded linux system

    it is beyond the abilities of your puny mass of brain cells to imagine the existence of computers whose memory is constrained by cost or power or size considerations.

    why do you bother commenting?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •