Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

    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

  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by JanC View Post
    Hint: there are ways to influence what processes get reaped first...
    Hint: it's an incredibly idiotic system. Stop supporting stupid.

    RAM is cheap.
    Only $3393.52 for 16gb. WHAT A BARGAIN!

    Leave a comment:


  • kiwi_kid_aka_bod
    replied
    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, 10:46 AM. Reason: Better info

    Leave a comment:


  • Calinou
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rexilion
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Calinou
    replied
    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...]).

    Leave a comment:


  • JanC
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • necro-lover
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X