Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:25:55 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
> did spake, saying:

> > http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/That-Wouldve-Been-an-Option-Too.aspx

> "a developer had to step in and restart the site to release resources"

> Wouldn't that suggest that bunging some more memory in would only increase  
> the time it took to fill up?

  You have a very good point. If the memory was filling up slowly, it means
there was some kind of leak. Buying more memory doesn't fix any memory leaks,
it only delays the symptoms.

  Leaks also often go hand-in-hand with other bugs in the software, so
fixing the leaks not only make the program stabler, but other bugs may
be caught in the process.

  Unless more "WTF" details are given about this story, I'd have to say
this is a "false WTF". It might sound like a WTF at first, but isn't.
The priorities should be "fix bugs first, then buy more hardware", not
the other way around.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message