010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT
shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SHORTCIRCUIT Not all rules were run,
due to a shortcircuited rule
* -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:16:52 -0000
On 05/06/2012 14:19, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 28 May 2012 16:43, Andy Smith<andy@???> wrote:
>> - 99.04% of BitFolk customers have less than 2GiB addressable RAM.
> I'm wondering what software process actually consume>2G of RAM and
> would get stuck if it ran out?
>
>
An in-memory datastore like Memcache or Redis can quite happily chew
through as much RAM as you can throw at it if you have a big enough data
set. I believe Redis can be configured to swap, but performance would
take a nose-dive.
--
Phil
From kai.hendry@??? Tue Jun 05 15:24:56 2012
Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com ([209.85.217.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <kai.hendry@???>)
id 1Sbvct-0000i4-Mz
for users@???; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:24:56 +0000
Received: by lboj14 with SMTP id j14so5851922lbo.21
for <users@???>; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=qBgKJ4amj4CC3mCRV5YHeZXhqAD10MkBS6dzOIEd0mo=;
b=AzPld4hKaMevHbzLJb6sXOqK+OC3ZiLhyUsRLSTHwLs2qMJVGZI3gko+uiS+QlH9Dd
JwcnSQyY67XtLQ8JZXv0I11FA3bb/wrYaLNi3jo1RjQy3bH/WVi10ZztSaTw7f9cOUfo
F4kWamqGcxL9C2hqH19c3ZLpp8g7AVby/w2UOUZvFBlYN3+/LZSHsc7OHEgGqFQerFb8
RkfEFpz7XdWqSc2iAIwDf6xabDaQL+1Q5n2eo4qNt5kqn81EoWOVuL4iawjAvoQtDz5p
3xDPBK3UiBhn3VRoFXS821H4o/0gmt4A7+xzRVBwNqaBBQ+HFZoawLtOLocr3pN8zSfV
Lx+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.144.138 with SMTP id sm10mr17391823lab.22.1338909889855;
Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: kai.hendry@???
Received: by 10.112.9.201 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FCE22D3.4050909@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<CAF8XF0c3zSHpFYu+hRVAhmL7Vy0qcTiVY-aDq085sc8ooAM8EQ@???>
<4FCE22D3.4050909@???>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:24:49 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: p5eIHjQ7xuCnY63wXcWiUJwD61Q
Message-ID: <CAF8XF0d==koC8kJu=yeH=eWB9PUnab4wH_7MSLsF_TNUU3GBrA@???>
From: Kai Hendry <hendry@???>
To: Phil Stewart <phil.stewart@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Tue,
05 Jun 2012 15:24:55 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.217.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: kai.hendry@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust
* [209.85.217.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Cc: users@???
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:24:56 -0000
On 5 June 2012 17:16, Phil Stewart <phil.stewart@???> wrote:
> An in-memory datastore like Memcache or Redis can quite happily chew through
> as much RAM as you can throw at it if you have a big enough data set. I
> believe Redis can be configured to swap, but performance would take a
> nose-dive.
Could such proggies not spawn another process in order to use more
memory though? Instead of swapping say, to slow disk IIUC.
That's what I'm wondering. I assumed PAE kernels might aid processes
to do this automagically too.
From hrm@??? Tue Jun 05 15:45:06 2012
Received: from [2001:ba8:1f1:f1d9:216:3eff:fe14:aef9]
(helo=frost.carfax.org.uk)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hrm@???>) id 1SbvwQ-0001Xg-5w
for users@???; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:45:06 +0000
Received: from ruthven.local ([10.73.18.16] helo=ruthven.carfax.org.uk)
by frost.carfax.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <hrm@???>)
id 1SbvwH-0002vA-DC; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:44:58 +0000
Received: from hrm by ruthven.carfax.org.uk with local (Exim 4.77)
(envelope-from <hrm@???>)
id 1SbvwG-0004lQ-M2; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:44:56 +0100
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:44:56 +0100
From: Hugo Mills <hugo-bf@???>
To: Kai Hendry <hendry@???>
Message-ID: <20120605154456.GG15986@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<CAF8XF0c3zSHpFYu+hRVAhmL7Vy0qcTiVY-aDq085sc8ooAM8EQ@???>
<4FCE22D3.4050909@???>
<CAF8XF0d==koC8kJu=yeH=eWB9PUnab4wH_7MSLsF_TNUU3GBrA@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kjpMrWxdCilgNbo1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF8XF0d==koC8kJu=yeH=eWB9PUnab4wH_7MSLsF_TNUU3GBrA@???>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: 8C59 86C7 81F3 93FE BB02 DDB1 20AC B3BE 515C 238D
X-GPG-Key: 515C238D
X-Parrot: It is no more. It has joined the choir invisible.
X-IRC-Nicks: darksatanic darkersatanic darkling darkthing
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-frost.carfax.org.uk-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-bitfolk.com-Metrics-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
2001:ba8:1f1:f1d9:216:3eff:fe14:aef9 (failed)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Tue,
05 Jun 2012 15:45:06 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f1d9:216:3eff:fe14:aef9
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hrm@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Cc: users@???,
Phil Stewart <phil.stewart@???>
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] 64-bit support
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:45:06 -0000
--kjpMrWxdCilgNbo1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:24:49PM +0200, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On 5 June 2012 17:16, Phil Stewart <phil.stewart@???> wrote:
> > An in-memory datastore like Memcache or Redis can quite happily chew through
> > as much RAM as you can throw at it if you have a big enough data set. I
> > believe Redis can be configured to swap, but performance would take a
> > nose-dive.
>
> Could such proggies not spawn another process in order to use more
> memory though? Instead of swapping say, to slow disk IIUC.
>
> That's what I'm wondering. I assumed PAE kernels might aid processes
> to do this automagically too.
I believe that PAE slows things down considerably. PAE is just a
horrible hack based on segmented memory (yes, remember that from the
DOS days?).
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or
http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- I am an opera lover from planet Zog. Take me to your lieder. ---
--kjpMrWxdCilgNbo1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFPzil4IKyzvlFcI40RAiDxAJ98HY8oLIl8ygfYIXb0GsbsmUzOSwCghdpJ
/By/IelTUkJHBtd/RKZuaVw=
=th+0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--kjpMrWxdCilgNbo1--
From miah@??? Tue Jun 05 15:59:50 2012
Received: from n01.darksilence.net ([2001:41c8:1:5c06::10])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <miah@???>)
id 1SbwAg-00023c-8p
for users@???; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:59:50 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by n01.darksilence.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ACB98173
for <users@???>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:59:49 +0100 (BST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at darksilence.net
Received: from n01.darksilence.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (n01.darksilence.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id w2oJXd4X3kCK for <users@???>;
Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:59:48 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [192.168.1.115]
(cpc1-john4-2-0-cust236.14-1.cable.virginmedia.com [86.14.184.237])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by n01.darksilence.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D02FC98164
for <users@???>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:59:48 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <1338911988.9733.9.camel@???>
From: Miah Greg
