2 ms·
Your reasoning is technically flawed. That aside, i recently hired the cheapest VPS i could find; 128MB RAM. I could not run apt-get; i ad to upgrade to 256MB
by willvarfar 15y ago
Your reasoning is technically flawed.
That aside, i recently hired the cheapest VPS i could find; 128MB RAM. I could not run apt-get; i ad to upgrade to 256MB.
- babebridou 15y agoLike I said I'm in no way a browser or web expert. I only have a notion of what could potentially fit in a certain amount of memory, and when I look at webpages I'm at least an order of magnitude off, in the wrong direction. This is why I'm worried. I sure hope I'm completely wrong!
- willvarfar 15y agohad to blog: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/16634123844/128mb-ought-to-be-enough-for-anybody http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/16634123844/128mb... To be honest, I don't really address where your 3GB for Chrome is going. All those memory figures you see should be taken with a pinch of salt. Reserving address space, using it and such are not so straightforward to untangle. Your OS doesn't offer anything like http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/13363076806/buffcacher http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/13363076806/buffc... sadly.
- viraptor 15y agoSimilar to your caching FS trick, it would be cool if Cleancache was exposed to the userspace somehow. (http://lwn.net/Articles/386090/ http://lwn.net/Articles/386090/)
- willvarfar 15y agoYes, the official blessing of a mechanism for caching would open the door to browsers using it I like file schmantics because it gives us access control and an api that is straightforward to use