|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Clarence1898 wrote:
>>>
>>>> My first thought was the new employee came from Microsoft.
>>>
>>> I am fairly confident that using more hardware resources is an
>>> explicit *design goal* for M$. (After all, who are their main
>>> customers?)
>>>
>>
>> End users?
>
> That's the mistake everyone makes.
>
OEMs are just distributors of the software, though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> OEMs are just distributors of the software, though.
Yes? And?
You probably think you're CBS's customer, too.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> OEMs are just distributors of the software, though.
>
> Yes? And?
>
> You probably think you're CBS's customer, too.
>
No. CBS's customers are the advertisers ...
MS doesn't write specifically for the hardware vendors. Unless you
consider corporations as being their biggest customers, but they're just
a conglomeration of end users.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4880e65d$1@news.povray.org...
> Unless you
> consider corporations as being their biggest customers, but they're just
> a conglomeration of end users.
But end users without a say in what their company buys and they use. Can
they be called customers since they did not spend their own money on a
product?
Corperates are MS's largest clients. Single users who purchase their
software (like you or I) are small fry to them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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?
No. If there was a leak, they wouldn't have reduced the memory footprint by
50%.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> No. If there was a leak, they wouldn't have reduced the memory footprint by
> 50%.
Clearly the article *does* say they got rid of leaks and inefficiencies
both. :-) Some leaks just aren't big enough to worry about, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4880f9f3$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > No. If there was a leak, they wouldn't have reduced the memory footprint
by
> > 50%.
> Clearly the article *does* say they got rid of leaks and inefficiencies
> both. :-)
That's not clear to me. Note that "unreleased resources" ...etc need not be
leaks.
It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to claim a 50% reduction in
memory in a leaky application, unless they halved the leaks as well instead
of eliminating them <g>
> Some leaks just aren't big enough to worry about, tho.
True, typically in interactive applications where user interaction
limitation sets an upper bound on leak rate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> That's not clear to me. Note that "unreleased resources" ...etc need not be
> leaks.
Possibly not. Possibly they were released but not as early as they
should have been.
> It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to claim a 50% reduction in
> memory in a leaky application, unless they halved the leaks as well instead
> of eliminating them <g>
Yeah. In any case, it's obvious that it's not going to be resolved on
the basis of *that* article. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:26:33 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Wouldn't that suggest that bunging some more memory in would only
>> increase the time it took to fill up?
>
> "Had to restart the system to free up resources" could mean "we're
> thrashing because we have 5000 connections open to the server at once,
> because they're not closing, because we're thrashing." For example.
True, but that still may be simply postponing the problem; the article
mentions the increasing need for restarting.
> But sure, if there's a leak, you'll eventually fill up memory. If 2 gig
> changes it from being "restart the server once every day" to "restart
> the server more rarely than we upgrade the software anyway", it's a win.
Indeed from a business perspective if buying more memory is cheaper then
fixing the underlying problems then that's the 'best' solution. I just
wouldn't place this article in the pure WTF category.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> But sure, if there's a leak, you'll eventually fill up memory. If 2 gig
> changes it from being "restart the server once every day" to "restart
> the server more rarely than we upgrade the software anyway", it's a win.
>
I actually know a system (actually, a 4-numbered set of those systems),
which is being reboot scheduledly every week because of a memory leak.
It's rare enough (and the actually needed schedule would be once in two
weeks oslt), so it's "ok".
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |