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.
.. 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.
.. You can get really cheap ECC ram as well, even if it were 2x as expensive,
that's still really cheap, less than 50 cents a megabyte, so what's your
problem? Go get some ECC memory and be happy.
-- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 07 2001 - 21:00:25 EST