How can the system be bumped-up to the next evolution of RAM-processing..?

[Linda McLeod]

Re: How does Fedora clean its RAM..?

From:
    "Reindl Harald"  [Add]
To:
    "Community support for Fedora users" 
Cc:
    "Linda McLeod" 
Date:
    Tue, 1 Nov 2011 6:39 PM (6 minutes 42 seconds ago)
    Show Raw Message
    Show full header

Am 02.11.2011 02:34, schrieb Linda McLeod:
> How does Fedora clean its RAM..?
>
> Does the system dump what's on unused RAM?..  Does it wait till
> reboot..?
> How does it work..?
>
> How can the system be bumped-up to the next evolution of
> RAM-processing..?
>
> Is there, or can there be, a continuous wiping-cleaner that instantly
> cleans RAM the moment its thht-data is dated..?

why should it clean RAM?

a modern unix system tends to consume ALL memory for caches,
buffers etc. and reuse it if a application needs active memory

wiping memory is snakeoil and if such a tool exists it was developed
from peopole who do not undertsnad how a modern OS works

______________________________

Maybe in part..  but there are still a lot of things that were seemingly
obsoleted, that still can be developed to their peaks modern ways...  It
isn't "snakeoil".. it's "pokin' & punchin' thu envelope" to see if'n
anything good got missed in the stampede...  Any ideas how the next
generation OS processes RAM..?  Why is there RAM..?  Why can't the OS
run its RAM off'n the hd..?

[g]

On 11/02/2011 01:56 AM, Linda McLeod wrote:
<>
> Any ideas how the next generation OS processes RAM..?

again, what do you mean by "next generation OS processes RAM"?
> Why is there RAM..?

why not? consider the meaning of "ram", "random access memory".
> Why can't the OS run its RAM off'n the hd..?

it can, if you want to wait. therefore, you could change "ram" to\
mean "rapid access memory".

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 11/01/2011 08:56 PM, Linda McLeod wrote:
> Why is there RAM..?  Why can't the OS
> run its RAM off'n the hd..?

http://imgur.com/S8fqw

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Wednesday 02 November 2011 01:56:13 Linda McLeod wrote:
[snip]
> Why is there RAM..?  Why can't the OS
> run its RAM off'n the hd..?

RAM exists because I/O of a HD is waaay too slow. You can get a feeling just 
how slow it can get when you open too many apps simultaneously, thus 
exhausting available RAM and making the OS use the swap partition for extra 
memory. It's *painfully* slow, the machine becomes practically unusable, and 
it's a complete waste of cycles of today's fast processors.

Even the I/O of RAM itself is fairly slow compared to the typical modern 
processor. That's why processors now have a built-in cache (which is basically 
a smaller amount of RAM on the processor chip itself), in order to speed up 
execution of programs and calculations.

You might then ask "why the processor designers don't put all RAM on the 
chip?" Because it would be too big, geometrically. In order to make the 
processor work on a 2GHz frequency or such, the chip surface must be small 
enough to keep everything in working conditions. Otherwise you run into out-
of-sync problems, uneven heat and voltage distribution problems, and all sorts 
of stuff that would make the processor fail. So the bulk of RAM must be 
separated, on their own chips, and communitace with the processor via the 
motherboard, which is again quite slow, due to its size and other reasons.

HTH, :-)
Marko

[Rick Stevens]

On 11/01/2011 08:08 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 November 2011 01:56:13 Linda McLeod wrote:
> [snip]
> > Why is there RAM..?  Why can't the OS
> > run its RAM off'n the hd..?
>
> RAM exists because I/O of a HD is waaay too slow. You can get a feeling just 
> how slow it can get when you open too many apps simultaneously, thus 
> exhausting available RAM and making the OS use the swap partition for extra 
> memory. It's *painfully* slow, the machine becomes practically unusable, and 
> it's a complete waste of cycles of today's fast processors.
>
> Even the I/O of RAM itself is fairly slow compared to the typical modern 
> processor. That's why processors now have a built-in cache (which is basically 
> a smaller amount of RAM on the processor chip itself), in order to speed up 
> execution of programs and calculations.
>
> You might then ask "why the processor designers don't put all RAM on the 
> chip?" Because it would be too big, geometrically. In order to make the 
> processor work on a 2GHz frequency or such, the chip surface must be small 
> enough to keep everything in working conditions. Otherwise you run into out-
> of-sync problems, uneven heat and voltage distribution problems, and all sorts 
> of stuff that would make the processor fail. So the bulk of RAM must be 
> separated, on their own chips, and communitace with the processor via the 
> motherboard, which is again quite slow, due to its size and other reasons.

Uhm, Marko, I think Linda was trying to be facetious.  Good info from
you, though.  :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting          [e-mail] -
- AIM/Skype: therps2        ICQ: 22643734            Yahoo: origrps2 -
-                                                                    -
-     Is that a buffer overflow or are you just happy to see me?     -
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Wednesday 02 November 2011 18:47:25 Rick Stevens wrote:
> Uhm, Marko, I think Linda was trying to be facetious.  Good info from
> you, though.  :-)

Oh, well, English is not my native language, so often I fail to recongize 
anything other than face-value meaning of what is written, especially on 
public mailing lists. But no harm done, anyway... ;-)

Best, :-)
Marko