Re: Wow! Is memory ever cheap!

H. Peter Anvin
2001-05-07T19:34:51Z

Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:21:28PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > What does BitKeeper have to do with this conversation?
> >
> > 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." Doing so dedicates my system to running a small set
> > of applications, which I am utterly uninterested in.
>
> .. BitKeeper isn't a memory hog, the kernel is bloated. Over 100MB of
> source last I checked. BitKeeper is incredibly good at _NOT_ being
> a memory hog, it uses the page cache as its memory pool. If things
> fit in the cache, they go fast, if they don't, they don't. BitKeeper
> is just like diff in that respect. If you think BitKeeper is a memory
> hog, then you must hate diff too. How about netscape? Don't run that
> either? Give me a break.
>

I wasn't the one who said it, you did. I don't have any evidence either
way.

> .. It's great that you aren't interested in running that set of small
> applications, I'm sure the entire kernel list is happy to learn that.

I believe the same is true for most people, with the major exceptions
being the embedded systems and server farm people.

-hpa

--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."