[opensuse] Re: I'm not sure "-pae" is worth it
On 01/19/2017 02:49 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
With that size memory, it would be running a PAE kernel.
OMG! The PAE mechanism involves a mapping table for the 32-bit system to address more than 4G. I'll leave aside the issue of why anyone might need for than 4G when many of us run excellent systems in that or less.
Leaving out HPC apps, here are a few reasons - virtual hosting, databases, web- and mail-servers. Virtual hosting is probably the one real reason for 32Gb and more. Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
I believe Per Jensen mentioned a server that had been up for over 4 years with just 2G.
Yup.
I'm sure that more than 4G I have in my 64-bit desktop would be nice
I've got 4Gb in my main workstation, the big memory consumers are firefix, Xorg, thunderbird, and libreoffice.
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit.
For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm, quite possibly moving towards 10GigE in some areas. For a SAN, 32Gbit is probably the norm now, 8G fibre is slowly coming on to the 2nd hand market.
But "-pae"? Even so, a processes address space remains at 32-bits, meaning it can only access a maximum of 4GB of memory. The OS however can access a 64GB address space, allocating 4GB chunks to processes.
In the business, we have one system left running with a PAE kernel - it's a mailserver with 12Gb of memory, nothing special. We don't need lots of memory per process, just lots of them. (imap users).
If this were critical, if this were corporate, I'd seriously look at getting a new mobo and a 64-but processor.
In our case, sure, but there wouldn't be a lot gained. That mailserver just keeps going and going, when it does eventually die, we'll replace it. There are two things that speak for an immediate upgrade - a) availability of spareparts b) electricity savings
As a manager, I look at this way: the cost of time (that is, salary or consultant's fee) flutzing around with this, ongoing,
There isn't any more futzing around than with any other box. If you want PAE, just install the right kernel, that's all. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-4.1°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - your free DNS host, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Per Jessen <per@computer.org> 01/19/17 10:39 AM >>>
Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
I'll add one more -- running applications from a ramdrive instead of disk for some pretty awesome speed :) memory :: chrismyers:/home/cmyers # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/ramdisk/test.img bs=10M count=1 oflag=dsync 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.00600971 s, 1.7 GB/s vs disk (albeit an Intel 530 SSD) :: chrismyers:/home/cmyers # dd if=/dev/zero of=/test.img bs=10M count=1 oflag=dsync 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 10485760 bytes (10 MB) copied, 0.0319964 s, 328 MB/s Chris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 11:58 AM, Christopher Myers wrote:
I'll add one more -- running applications from a ramdrive instead of disk for some pretty awesome speed :)
That takes me back to the DOS days when we'd use high memory for RAM disks, as DOS couldn't use it otherwise. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'll leave aside the issue of why anyone might need for than 4G when many of us run excellent systems in that or less. Leaving out HPC apps, here are a few reasons - virtual hosting, databases, web- and mail-servers. Virtual hosting is probably the one real reason for 32Gb and more. Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
I'm not saying that there aren't applications that justify more than 4G. I just said I'd leave that issue aside. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'll leave aside the issue of why anyone might need for than 4G when many of us run excellent systems in that or less. Leaving out HPC apps, here are a few reasons - virtual hosting, databases, web- and mail-servers. Virtual hosting is probably the one real reason for 32Gb and more. Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
I'm not saying that there aren't applications that justify more than 4G. I just said I'd leave that issue aside.
Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you; for plain 9-5 office work, 4Gb is more than plenty, 2Gb would suffice for most people. Even for many servers, depending on the workload. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-4.2°C) http://www.hostsuisse.com/ - virtual servers, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 01:15 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm not saying that there aren't applications that justify more than
4G. I just said I'd leave that issue aside. Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you; for plain 9-5 office work, 4Gb is more than plenty, 2Gb would suffice for most people. Even for many servers, depending on the workload.
640K ought to be enough for anybody. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 11:06 PM, James Knott wrote:
640K ought to be enough for anybody. ;-)
What an astounding idea! Can I quote you on that?" :-) -- 640K ought to be enough for anybody. - James Knott, 19th Jan, 2017 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/20/2017 07:31 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:06 PM, James Knott wrote:
640K ought to be enough for anybody. ;-) What an astounding idea! Can I quote you on that?"
:-)
Didn't Bill Gates say something like that back in the dark ages. -- Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You must learn to be slow in a hurry. -Wyatt Earp- _ _... ..._ _ _._ ._ ..... ._.. ... .._ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Billie Walsh wrote:
On 01/20/2017 07:31 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:06 PM, James Knott wrote:
640K ought to be enough for anybody. ;-) What an astounding idea! Can I quote you on that?"
:-)
Didn't Bill Gates say something like that back in the dark ages.
James is in good company, even if he stole the quote - Thomas J. Watson (IBM), Bill Gates, Ken Olsen (DEC). -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-3.8°C) http://www.cloudsuisse.com/ - your owncloud, hosted in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday, 19 January 2017 19:15:13 ACDT Per Jessen wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'll leave aside the issue of why anyone might
need for than 4G when many of us run excellent systems in that or less.
Leaving out HPC apps, here are a few reasons - virtual hosting, databases, web- and mail-servers. Virtual hosting is probably the one real reason for 32Gb and more. Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
I'm not saying that there aren't applications that justify more than 4G. I just said I'd leave that issue aside.
Sure, I'm not disagreeing with you; for plain 9-5 office work, 4Gb is more than plenty, 2Gb would suffice for most people. Even for many servers, depending on the workload.
Actually, there is one application that definitely benefits from having more RAM - virtualisation! Although I run openSuSE as my primary desktop OS, for work compatibilty purposes I also have Win2K (more as a novelty, now), Win7 and Win10 VM's that I run up from time to time. With 16GB RAM I can give the guest OS 4-8GB and still have plenty left over for the host OS, and I haven't had a swap file on this machine for over 4 years! For me, virtualisation IS a desktop app and when it comes to virtualisation, RAM is king! And, yes, I have had Win2k, WinXP, Win7 and Win 10 all running simultaneously with openSuSe still running quite happily and responsively, just to prove I could do it (and to test certain Samba networking functionality with all 4 versions of Windows clients). :) Cheers, Rodney. -- ============================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au ============================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
I'm sure that more than 4G I have in my 64-bit desktop would be nice I've got 4Gb in my main workstation, the big memory consumers are firefix, Xorg, thunderbird, and libreoffice.
Exactly[1] the same here with my HP Optiplex. The specs say that it can't support more than 4G, 4 slots of 1G, but a friend has 2G in each of the 4 slots on his. He doesn't think it would work with 4G RA< cards, though, but then he hasn't tried. This is an Intel machine/mobo. next time I might get an AMD one, since memory is cheaper for them. [1] Well I also run Darktable and other Java based apps, but compared to Firefox they are not great memory consumers. Firefox is HOG but Chrome has a long way to go catch up on the functionality and suite of plugins yet to serve as a replacement. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 19/01/17 16:39, Per Jessen wrote:
On 01/19/2017 02:49 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
With that size memory, it would be running a PAE kernel. OMG! The PAE mechanism involves a mapping table for the 32-bit system to address more than 4G. I'll leave aside the issue of why anyone might need for than 4G when many of us run excellent systems in that or less. Leaving out HPC apps, here are a few reasons - virtual hosting, databases, web- and mail-servers. Virtual hosting is probably the one real reason for 32Gb and more. Are there any desktop apps that would benefit? Photo editing?
Don't tempt me ... If we could get away from brain-dead first normal form database engines, a lot of the need for storing databases in RAM would disappear. One of my favourite war stories - a Pick database was ported to Oracle. After *six months* hard work optimising a particular query, the consultants proudly announced to management that the new system was 10% faster than the old one - 4min30 instead of 5mins. Unfortunately, they did this in earshot of the person maintaining the old system, who snorted - "Your twin Xeon 800 is ten percent faster than my Pentium 90, and you're PROUD of that fact?" (Oh - and a SQL guy said he bet the Pick query was hand-tuned - I doubt it. I'd guess it was thrown together in what, maybe 5 minutes?) I've had a pick system absolutely thrashing the disk with insufficient ram, and system response was poor but not dreadfully so. imnsho, "efficient" and "first normal form" are provably mathematically incompatible. Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 02:21 PM, Anthony Youngman wrote:
imnsho, "efficient" and "first normal form" are provably mathematically incompatible.
So? Codd made that clear back in the 1980s. That wasn't the argument, then. It was that the IT department took months to process even the simplest user requests. The possible relationships were all hard coded and THAT WAS THAT! The point, the whole point, was MAINTAINABILITY and FLEXIBILITY compared to the extant database forms where the structure and possible relationships were compiled in to the design of the database and only permitted the "questions" hat were part of that design. Since then, we've had many accommodations to achieve performance but many others are actually making the database 'fixed' by other means and adding new tables or restructuring breaks that and requires a 'recompilation. So its not really what Codd envisioned. An example of this is the (otherwise very *NIX friendly) Progress 5GL database system. In development mode it is a pure relational database, but once developed that database and the application are "compiled" and fixed. If you want efficiency you have to go further and that can't be done on trivial databases and simplistic relationships. once you get a few hundred entities and many thousands of basic relationships you can try for third or perhaps fifth normal form. BTDT, and it no easy matter but the factorization is no joke either and I've had over 1,00% speed up over 1st normal when dealing with some missives that way. It hurts the brain and you need some tools and it is an iterative and its not applicable for many cases. Well, OK, its only applicable in a few cases. I've never seen a web application what would warrant it -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 20/01/17 13:53, Anton Aylward wrote:
imnsho, "efficient" and "first normal form" are provably mathematically incompatible.
So? Codd made that clear back in the 1980s. That wasn't the argument, then. It was that the IT department took months to
On 01/19/2017 02:21 PM, Anthony Youngman wrote: process even the simplest user requests. The possible relationships were all hard coded and THAT WAS THAT!
I actually very much like relational theory. It's a great analysis tool. But there were good tools around even before then (Pick predates relational). The thing about Pick is it stores a 3nf representation of an object in a "table row" so you get all the simplicity of a relational analysis of an object, and all the flexibility of linking objects together. That's why that comment about a P90 being able to outperform a twin Xeon 800 - you get all benefits of relational flexibility, with all the power and speed of what is probably called a hierarchical database. It's just that with Pick, you can pick :-) any object as the root of your hierarchy with equal ease. And the typical Pick house usually takes half an hour to respond to even complicated user requests. A developer mentioned something to a new manager in a meeting, and the manager said "that's a good idea". Next meeting the manager says "we need to schedule time to implement your idea". "No need," says the developer, "after last meeting I went back to my desk and knocked it up there and then." "What!" "It's in production". I'd better get off my soapbox before I really get going :-) Cheers, Wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about
gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit. For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm
With the cost of networking gear these days, even 1G at home is common. I recently picked up a 5 port managed gigabit switch for about $30. Computers have come with Gb NICs for years. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/20/2017 04:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about
gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit. For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm
With the cost of networking gear these days, even 1G at home is common. I recently picked up a 5 port managed gigabit switch for about $30. Computers have come with Gb NICs for years.
Keep in mind the packet forwarding rate on early or cheap gigabit switches may not be up to snuff. Pays to shop the fine print. -- After all is said and done, more is said than done. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/20/2017 01:57 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 01/20/2017 04:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about
gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit. For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm With the cost of networking gear these days, even 1G at home is common. I recently picked up a 5 port managed gigabit switch for about $30. Computers have come with Gb NICs for years. Keep in mind the packet forwarding rate on early or cheap gigabit switches may not be up to snuff. Pays to shop the fine print.
It's a TP-Link TL-SG105E which, according to the specs, has a 10 Gb/s switching capacity. I bought it to use as a "data tap" by setting up port mirroring. This allows me to use Wireshark to monitor Ethernet connections. http://static.tp-link.com/res/down/doc/TL-SG105-108.pdf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 01/20/2017 09:58 PM, James Knott wrote:
On 01/20/2017 01:57 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 01/20/2017 04:41 AM, James Knott wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about
gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit. For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm With the cost of networking gear these days, even 1G at home is common. I recently picked up a 5 port managed gigabit switch for about $30. Computers have come with Gb NICs for years. Keep in mind the packet forwarding rate on early or cheap gigabit switches may not be up to snuff. Pays to shop the fine print.
It's a TP-Link TL-SG105E which, according to the specs, has a 10 Gb/s switching capacity. I bought it to use as a "data tap" by setting up port mirroring. This allows me to use Wireshark to monitor Ethernet connections.
Forgot to mention, the packet forwarding rate is 7.4 Mp/s. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2017-01-20 13:41, James Knott wrote:
On 01/19/2017 11:39 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
If I were corporate and the LAN/SAN were the limit I'd see about
gigabit networking or optical networking. But then again, all my machines, except for a few from the Closet of Anxieties with 800Mhz 32-bit/1GRAM are 64-bit. For office networks, 1GigE has long been the norm
With the cost of networking gear these days, even 1G at home is common. I recently picked up a 5 port managed gigabit switch for about $30. Computers have come with Gb NICs for years.
Absolutely. But recently I was dismayed to find out that my new WiFi AP is not gigabit (it has 4 ethernet ports, too). Unfortunately, too late to return the unit. My laptop doesn't support gigabit, either. The other day I had to argue with the lady on the phone of an ISP that wanted to upgrade automatically an internet connection speed to 150 on a site. I tried to reason with her about the absurdity of increasing connection speed on a site that uses only WiFi (it goes at 40). On the end, I had to pull rank and tell her I was an engineer and that I knew more than her. She subsided, and instead offered a cheaper contract. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
On 20/01/17 20:43, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The other day I had to argue with the lady on the phone of an ISP that wanted to upgrade automatically an internet connection speed to 150 on a site. I tried to reason with her about the absurdity of increasing connection speed on a site that uses only WiFi (it goes at 40).
On the end, I had to pull rank and tell her I was an engineer and that I knew more than her. She subsided, and instead offered a cheaper contract.
:-) Just had a marketing call from someone saying "We can sell you cheap broadband" - the implication being that they were cheaper than my current provider (difficult). I shut them up by saying I wasn't interested in cheap broadband - I wanted broadband that actually worked. The problem from my point of view is that everybody wants to sell FTTC. However, I have a direct line to the exchange (I get 17Mb from a theoretical max 20Mb). So I can't get FTTC speeds. I've been told the problem is crosstalk - FTTC only has to worry about a small number of copper wires, from one fibre. My setup has to worry about crosstalk from all the wires in the exchange, so can't run anywhere near so fast. And that's why my provider is cheap - I'm getting the maximum available which isn't market competitive. I don't care, I want internet, not broadband. And I also want IPv6, which most ISPs don't offer ... :-( Cheers, wol -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (10)
-
Anthony Youngman -
Anton Aylward -
Billie Walsh -
Carlos E. R. -
Christopher Myers -
James Knott -
John Andersen -
Per Jessen -
Rodney Baker -
Wols Lists