Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote 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 activity’s 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote 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!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote 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...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    575

    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...]).

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default wrong wrong wrong

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    575

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote 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 at 09:46 AM. Reason: Better info

Posting Permissions

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