Re: Wow! Is memory ever cheap!

[H. Peter Anvin]

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

-- 
<[e-mail]> at work, <[e-mail]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt