That's a fine position in theory, but I doubt it works well in practice even today. When Jay talks about 3-4 GB, he doesn't mean over the course of a conference -- that could sometimes add up in just a few hours. No amount of cheap RAM is going to combat that.
But, as I said, in an Ajax world there is much less need for the rapid accumulation of continuations. Shriram On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > Regarding paging... The only three situations in which I consider paging > acceptable nowadays on workstations and servers, when a handful of dollars > buys you a few GB RAM: > > 1. For resilience in exceptional/emergency situations, when the alternative > would be an OOM kill or a crash. > > 2. When an application with massive memory requirements was designed/tuned > specifically to work well with OS's virtual memory behavior. > > 3. Cloud and shared-hosting servers that don't care if performance blows. > > None of my personal machines even have swap partitions, and I don't recall > using even half of my RAM. In this screenshot of lower-right corner of my > screen, it tells me I'm using 16% of 3GB RAM on this workstation that's > running Linux, X, XMonad, PostgreSQL server, Apache, and several different > Racket SCGI servers, in addition to my bloated email client: > http://i.imgur.com/fCBBR.png > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
