Home > Archive > ASM370 > September 2007 > Four Yorkshiremen and 64 gig memory
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Four Yorkshiremen and 64 gig memory
|
|
| J de Boyne Pollard 2007-09-06, 6:58 pm |
| FM> Something is horribly *wrong* when that happens.
It's your assumptions and analyses, again. Two examples:
FM> Right now (for example) I have *over fifty* processes running
FM> on my computer that I have little or no idea of what they're
FM> doing there; [...]
It's a fair bet that most of those processes are actually *not*
running, but are sleeping. You've assumed that the processes are
consuming CPU/RAM/IO resources, and decided based upon that assumption
that you need to kill the processes, but you haven't looked properly
to see whether what you've assumed is actually true in the first
place. Your assumptions are wrong.
FM> To get rid of the 45-50 completely unneeded processes [...]
You've stated that you don't know what the processes are doing. You
therefore cannot legitimately state that they are unneeded. For all
that you know, they could have integral and vital roles in what you
are doing. Your analysis is wrong.
| |
| Quadibloc 2007-09-06, 9:58 pm |
| J de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Charlton Wilbur made the point earlier in this very thread
> that the software does more. It obviously requires repetition.
We know it does more.
What we disagree about, or what we are dissatisfied with, is the
*value* of this "more" that is done.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
|