Aggressive Low Memory Booster For The Linux Kernel

[JanC]

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...

[Calinou]

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...]).

[Rexilion]

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.

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.

[frantaylor]

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.

[Calinou]

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.

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.

[kiwi_kid_aka_bod]

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.

[yogi_berra]

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!