From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:32 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([207.181.251.162]:338 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:44:22 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Wow! Is memory ever cheap! Message-ID: <20010507124422.A19774@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010505095802.X12431@work.bitmover.com> <20010506142043.B31269@metastasis.f00f.org> <20010505194536.D14127@work.bitmover.com> <9d6qk6$i86$1@cesium.transmeta.com> <20010507115659.T14127@work.bitmover.com> <3AF6F11E.3A03050E@transmeta.com> <20010507121822.V14127@work.bitmover.com> <3AF6F5B8.42F803C1@transmeta.com> <20010507122730.A19632@work.bitmover.com> <3AF6F8A5.F556DF62@transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <3AF6F8A5.F556DF62@transmeta.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:33:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Because your original post was "yeah, Bitkeeper is a memory hog but you > > > can get really cheap non-ECC RAM so just stuff your system with crappy > > > RAM and be happy." > I wasn't the one who said it, you did. I don't have any evidence either > way. Err, Peter, it's starting to sound like you have some ax to grind that I don't know about. So I'll bow out of this conversation. For the record, however, I never stated that BitKeeper is a memory hog, that's a conclusion you drew. Somehow, if I had said "look, for very little money you can fit all of the kernel source, revision history, and objects in memory", would you have translated that into "BitKeeper is a memory hog"? It seems that way. BitKeeper has nothing to do with it, it's all about how big the data set is that the application is working on. BitKeeper is better than most applications, it mmaps the data and uses the page cache so that it doesn't cache it twice. Contrast that with most other apps, you'll see they have their own internal cache of data when they should just use mmap. Anyway, I think we've beaten this to death, so let's move on. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm