Finally! I've been waiting for someone to resurrect this thread.
Ok. I've decided that if a program consumes ALL of a computer's
available memory (free, inactive), then GC.start is run, it will be
able to free all that RAM.
I have done several scientific tests with this on World of Warcraft
(heh. work on WoW) and image rendering.
So what's the best way to consume all of a computer's RAM? I've been
toying with the idea of massive variable generation, but i think that
might be a bit difficult.
This can be of great use for computers with low memory - You run this script, it uses up all available memory, and then it exits. Guess what happens then? GC clears out all of the RAM the ruby script was using. And since it was using up all available RAM, other programs can then run better and faster.
You see? Its not malicious!
-------------------------------------------------------|
~ Ari
crap my sig won't fit
···
On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Todd Benson wrote:
On 8/5/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
Finally! I've been waiting for someone to resurrect this thread.
Ok. I've decided that if a program consumes ALL of a computer's
available memory (free, inactive), then GC.start is run, it will be
able to free all that RAM.
I have done several scientific tests with this on World of Warcraft
(heh. work on WoW) and image rendering.
So what's the best way to consume all of a computer's RAM? I've been
toying with the idea of massive variable generation, but i think that
might be a bit difficult.
This can be of great use for computers with low memory - You run this
script, it uses up all available memory, and then it exits. Guess what
happens then? GC clears out all of the RAM the ruby script was using.
And since it was using up all available RAM, other programs can then
run better and faster.
At this moment, other programs have been painfully pushed to swap, so
they have to get out of swap before doing anything. If you want to solve
a memory management problem, don't use a program, tune your kernel (or
swap the OS for another if it's unable to do memory management properly,
Ruby works on a large choice of OS...).
>> Finally! I've been waiting for someone to resurrect this thread.
>>
>> Ok. I've decided that if a program consumes ALL of a computer's
>> available memory (free, inactive), then GC.start is run, it will be
>> able to free all that RAM.
>>
>> I have done several scientific tests with this on World of Warcraft
>> (heh. work on WoW) and image rendering.
>>
>> So what's the best way to consume all of a computer's RAM? I've been
>> toying with the idea of massive variable generation, but i think that
>> might be a bit difficult.
>>
>> So what do you all think?
>
> Why oh why are you asking for this, Ari?
This can be of great use for computers with low memory - You run this
script, it uses up all available memory, and then it exits. Guess
what happens then? GC clears out all of the RAM the ruby script was
using. And since it was using up all available RAM, other programs
can then run better and faster.
OK. I might be using up my credibility here, but ...
/memory/intelligence/
You see? Its not malicious!
That's not my intention either. The only thing that comes to mind is
"shooting themselves in the foot"?
Point being: yes, it is useful to be destructive in order to be
productive. But, do you really have to?
Todd
···
On 8/6/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Todd Benson wrote:
> On 8/5/07, Ari Brown <ari@aribrown.com> wrote:
OK. I might be using up my credibility here, but ...
/memory/intelligence/
You see? Its not malicious!
That's not my intention either. The only thing that comes to mind is
"shooting themselves in the foot"?
Point being: yes, it is useful to be destructive in order to be
productive. But, do you really have to?
Well, no, I don't have to, but it would be really nice to be able to have a bunch of free memory so my computer doesn't stall during another program. Is there an alternative to soaking up the RAM and then releasing it?
-------------------------------------------------------|
~ Ari
crap my sig won't fit
Well, no, I don't have to, but it would be really nice to be able to have a bunch of free memory so my computer doesn't stall during another program. Is there an alternative to soaking up the RAM and then releasing it?
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
It's just generally accepted that the Berkeley and MIT crowd have figured out memory management well enough at the OS level. The best way to free up additional memory is to run fewer apps at the same time and tweak the OS to run less stuff in the background.
One aspect of memory management, however, is that there is just a limit to how many apps can run smoothly at the same time on the same machine. Even with lots of memory, you still run into limits on the processor.
···
On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Ari Brown wrote:
On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Todd Benson wrote:
<snip>
OK. I might be using up my credibility here, but ...
/memory/intelligence/
You see? Its not malicious!
That's not my intention either. The only thing that comes to mind is
"shooting themselves in the foot"?
Point being: yes, it is useful to be destructive in order to be
productive. But, do you really have to?
Well, no, I don't have to, but it would be really nice to be able to have a bunch of free memory so my computer doesn't stall during another program. Is there an alternative to soaking up the RAM and then releasing it?
-------------------------------------------------------|
~ Ari
crap my sig won't fit