Mike Raiford wrote:

> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...

http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00160.html

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:4885f9e5$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>>> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..
>>
>> No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!
>>
>
> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...

   Oh wow, that would be SO nice! See the page-file?  OoO

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:4885f0f9$1@news.povray.org...
> > Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS
> > of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.
>
> Looks like he is running a prototype version of the next Windows... ;-)

Dunno. I'll have to check tomorrow, but I think that's Windows Server 2008.
The version of windows that's in dev (windows 7) is, afaik, a workstation
version, not a server version.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
> Look at the first screenshot of task manager. Realize that it's 4 ROWS
> of graphs. Read the physical memory amount.
>

Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>

>
> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.

I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big servers.
The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only manifests
on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory

Post a reply to this message

In article <4885f9e5$1@news.povray.org>, mra### [at] hotmailcom says...
> scott wrote:
> >> Don't tell me that's the minimum requirements..
> > 
> > No no no, he's only using 4% of the RAM there!
> > 
> 
> Oh, so ... only about 40GB of RAM, then ...
> 
No, that's 40GB in the machine, the other 80GB is on the HDD. lol

Seriously, someone was doing a poorly done, but interesting comparison 
on Windows vs. Linux memory usage. Windows simply crashed at a certain 
point on his when swap partition was off, while Linux didn't even 
notice, since it never, under the configuration it used on installation, 
used it anyway. Windows of course wouldn't boot at all in 512MB, but 
Linux simply refused to run the desktop. And.. memory usage of tasks... 
Windows swallowed in average about 30+% more (per task), for every thing 
you did with it, and in the case of IE 7, refused to give any of it back 
until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that 
fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor 
utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on 
a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while 
just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.

Basically, windows seems to be so tuned (and not possible to untune) to 
swap shit out when not explicitly needed that half your processor 
activity and most of your system memory is constantly being dumped back 
and forth from the HDD, and that is without asking, "Why the hell does 
it take 20% more to do the same thing anyway, never mind things like IE 
7 never returning any of it when no longer needed? (Should be noted, 
this is also the same stupid issue we ran into with Active Script. It 
failed to "release" memory immediately, so every time you loaded, ran, 
then dropped a small fragment of code, while there was still a main 
script running in the client application, it would eat a bit of your 
available ram. Do that 2,000-3,000 times in a row and your client 
crashed do to sudden lack of memory, 99% of which shouldn't have even 
still been "in use".)

And we wonder why it is still "unstable"? lol

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>

Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with? ;-)

[Although possibly not with a whole 2TB of RAM...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...

>> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
> 
> I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big servers.
> The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only manifests
> on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory

is that sarcasm?

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
> > "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
> >
> > I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big
servers.
> > The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only
manifests
> > on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory
>
> is that sarcasm?

No.

SQL Server 2005 did have a 'bug' that only manifested on servers with more
than 20 GB memory. Don't want the same to happen with the OS.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48864b76$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Nice. Wonder where I can get one of those... <g>
>
> Why Gail, I thought you *already* had lots of big servers to play with?
;-)

I do, but that puts my 16 proc 64GB box to shame.
Anyay, I only have access to the big servers til friday. After that the
biggest machine I'll be able to test on is my new (still in construction)
quad code, 4GB desktop.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-Jul-08 23:28, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 22-Jul-08 22:42, Gail Shaw wrote:
>>> "Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4885e8a7$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Whatever machine that was running on is a BEAST.
>>> I'm glad the server team's testing out on the really, really big
> servers.
>>> The last thing you want in a server OS is a subtle bug that only
> manifests
>>> on servers with lots of CPUs/lots of memory
>> is that sarcasm?
> 
> No.
> 
> SQL Server 2005 did have a 'bug' that only manifested on servers with more
> than 20 GB memory. Don't want the same to happen with the OS.
> 

Ah, ok, didn't know that. I did know that quite a lot of the things MS 
make have trouble running on an average machine when the software comes 
on the market. But that was not what you were referring to.

Post a reply to this message