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-Be
