On Sunday September 02 2018 15:54:53 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > No need to CC me. If it makes sense to find your answer, I will. :)
Mailman should be able to filter out CC'ed addresses that are also on the mailing list. One can't really expect members to remember which other members have that feature disabled, nor which lists do not require to use "Reply All" ... > *hot* data. Which for me means data which is accessed often, mostly > randomly, not sequential. I assume you also mean data which could be stored on a more-or-less dedicated fast and not-necessarily-large disk. Not many (non-highend) laptops out there that support multiple internal disks... > A *silent* laptop :) Hmm, how old is your spinning rust, or how cool your laptop? Even my notebook (which has only a relatively cool N3150) tends to overpower harddisk noise with its fan, not to mention my MBP with its hot Sandybridge i7. IOW, I don't hear any HDD noise. Of course I remember the Quantum HDDs from the 90s which often sounded like they were grinding through their cases :) > > But this thread is not about such things, nor memory usage (except > > possibly by akonadi). As such I consider it irrelevant enough to cite > > Sure it is not. That is part of the reason I thought its pretty > pointless. It is in my eyes. I could also have refrained from mentioning that FF uses even more memory than Chrome because that difference is irrelevant in itself. > Okay, I can´t say much about this. As I do not know what the utility > actually displays, AFAIK, the value that's actually subtracted from the available RAM to show the amount of free RAM (but recent OS X versions rarely swap to disk). Not that it really matters, it uses the same calculation for all processes it lists, so comparing the values amongst processes isn't completely pointless. > whether it somehow considers memory processes share I doubt it does (except in the aggregated numbers it also shows). I just shows the processes that also show up in the process switcher which it considers hogs. > Okay, that it at least a Firefox with the Quantum engine. According to > what I read it can handle an insane amount of tabs efficiently. "Efficiently" is a rather relative term... According to what I understand it actually combines the best of the Chromium engine with the best of however Mozilla calls their engine. That's not an approach I'd think of as minimising memory usage, intuitively. R.
