3 ms·
Hmm, while i definitely agree with 2., i'm not sure that i'd dismiss 1. so easily. To me, that sounds a bit like saying: "Compressing backups? If you can't sto
by KronisLV 5y ago
Hmm, while i definitely agree with 2., i'm not sure that i'd dismiss 1. so easily.
To me, that sounds a bit like saying: "Compressing backups? If you can't store them as they are, you don't have enough storage for what you're trying to do." With finite resources, regardless of whether it's storage, RAM or CPU cores, it makes sense to look for options to utilize them more efficiently.
Not everyone can acquire all of the RAM for the problems that they'd want to tackle and therefore solutions like this could provide tangible benefits with sometimes acceptable drawbacks (the mentioned CPU usage). Personally, i feel like having VPSes that'd offer me more memory would be a good thing, since most of the software that i use is mostly memory not CPU constrained, though i understand why opinions could differ.
As for memory leaks and rather liberal memory usage - i feel that it'll be inevitable for as long as the industry uses Java, .NET, Ruby, Python, Node and most other technologies with a high abstraction level (and VM runtimes, ofen coupled with GC). Yet not everyone is keen on writing their business apps in C++ or Rust.
- mananaysiempre 5y agoFWIW, there has been a lot of research on making GC (particularly on the JVM) communicate its memory status to the kernel, but the (usually Linux) kernel developers’ attitude was always “no, you don’t get to put your thesis into mainline, unless you can prove people actually use it”. Which is partly fair, but the end result is still a dumb chicken-and-egg situation.