Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
|
That's already implemented. or so.
Ubuntu caches your aplications.
|
|
Agrou
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 16:33
|
|
|
|
Maybe, but when I'm clicking at nautilus for exemple the hard drive is working. I don't think it is because it look at the default folder because it takes more than 1 second.
|
|
|
|
I prefer the philosophy, "Linux uses what it needs, not what it wants". If I have 2GB of RAM, I want to see at least 80% of that belonging to the user, not the OS or anything fancy.
|
|
edcrypt
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:20
|
|
|
"Today most of the computers are providing 2Go of RAM or more."
Maybe in your hemisphere! :P
|
|
Spoker
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:34
|
|
|
|
Here I am, with 256 megs of ram!
|
|
|
I see a big advantage in using the ram for caching the most frequently needed things. I did not buy ram for having it empty most of the time.
Of course this should not prevent the user of having access to it if his applications do need it (Makoto), and of course it should not change behaviour for machins with smaller ram!
|
|
dburanen
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:53
|
|
|
|
Look at gnome-system-monitor and you'll see that most of your ram is cached.
|
|
Estesark
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:51
|
|
|
I think this idea will forever be the idea with the greatest negative score on the whole of brainstorm. Congratulations.
Remember that Ubuntu is meant to be inclusive and available. Increasing the system requirements would go against that.
|
|
zeb
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:00
|
|
|
I had to vote this down because it's Microsoft thinking. Linux is loved the world round because of it's frugal nature which simultaneously yields great power when needed.
Waste not want not.
|
|
|
|
Dont encourage OS bloat why do you think vista is what it is. It was built by a company that doesn't care for efficiency
|
|
maltes
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:36
|
|
|
AFAIK the kernel itself is already doing exactly what you are asking for.
It caches stuff it thinks you will need all the time. Hence system memory is allways almost full. This is not a performance issue, since it doesn't take more time to overwrite stuff than it takes to write stuff to blank memory.
|
|
bntuuu
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 17:26
|
|
|
Less is more.
In fact, I was about to post a recommendation that a lighter install be possible for people with 128Mb or less.
Keep in mind that a big draw for Linux is the ability to salvage old systems.
I believe many people would be happy with an install which has a minimalist install of a web browser WITH flash out of the box(I perfer Firefox), email client, and maybe an office app.
While I enjoy the enhancements, 95% of what I do is surf the web and check my mail.
|
|
Agrou
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 23:16
|
|
|
I agree with you when you (all) said that ubuntu and linux in general must work with small systems. I do have an old computer with 256Mb running with ubuntu and it is a very good thing to be able to do that. Vista is really NOT the example, but if there is more memory avaliable why not using that ? This is a simple question.
I know that linux is already caching a lot of things but maybe it is possible to do more on that way ONLY WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE, if there is a lot of memory available. It is about using capacity of computers not increase the system requirements.
But maybe I'm the only person thinking that my(yours ?) favorites apps should start/run faster ? Or did I explain it in a wrong way ( english is not my native language )?
|
|
|
Well then, you're really not talking about the memory (since it can only hold the information), you'd be talking about the processor. That's where it'll make things a ton faster.
Memory can hold the programs. Processors actually make them run.
Also, I do a lot of high-strung and CPU-intensive tasks on a daily basis (programming and compiling), so I obviously want as little demand on the CPU as I can get, and as little of that kernel occupying the RAM as I can get.
|
|
herorev
wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 04:30
|
|
|
|
Wow, this is the very first time I've ever seen, in the wild, units like "Mo" (megaoctet) and "Go" (gigaoctet). But wouldn't units like Mio (mebioctet) and Gio (gibioctet) be more appropriate here?
|
|
leszek
wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 21:10
|
|
|
"I'm sure it will be possible to preload most usefull apps and to bring a more efficient, smooth and fast system. "
In fact, it already exists and it is called .... "preload"
It is an application which register the most used files and preload them in the ram at the next boot.
|
|
Endolith
wrote on the 15 Apr 08 at 19:18
|
|
|
|
So you all want us to leave RAM sitting there unused to enable the computer to run... slower? That doesn't make sense. If it's there, use it. Anything to make the computer run faster and more efficiently, on any system.
|
|
|
I'm surprised. This is actually a good idea with an unfortunate title (jugding by the undeserved number of downvotes). Taking advantage of the actual RAM capacity is not detrimental to efficiency. on the contrary, it would make the system much faster.
I agree though, that it should raise the minimum RAM required to run the OS, just make use of how much memory it is given to it.
|
|
andersja
wrote on the 15 May 08 at 15:51
|
|
|
|
+1 - this is actually quite an interesting idea...! Improved caching etc should not increase the load of low spec computers but should allow high-spec computers to improve user experience!
|
|
Endolith
wrote on the 27 May 08 at 15:55
|
|
|
@herorev
gigaoctet is French. Agrou is French, so he will probably use the French unit. :) Yes, RAM would be "2 Gio". Most other things are just Go.
|
|
|
|
The more RAM something uses the slower it gets
|
|
|
@ polishubuntu:
wrong. The system only gets slow if it goes out of ram and starts swapping with hard disk memory.
|
|
|
|
That's what Vista was made for
|
|
Inxynguu
wrote on the 30 Nov 08 at 05:17
|
|
|
|
i would have that as an administration option. i get what you mean, but Ubuntu cant become a vista. i am saying this with 3Gb of RAM, but it should only do this as an option, and after boot. I love the idea, but it would have to be under controlled conditions, not Ubuntu trying to use more memory...
|
|
|
People seem to be misunderstanding. Somewhat understandable considering the title, as I doubt many are actually opening the article to read before rating.
he is talking about higher end computers having the OPTION to preload commonly used data into the ram, allowing extra performance.
This would be irrelevant to slower computers, and would not affect their performance.
I do wonder if this would make less frequently accessed programs slower to execute?
Since everything else in linux is so customizable, seems like some options to control ram behaviour couldn't hurt. Just make it clear within the UI that it's an advanced feature.
*shrug*
Could have some potential
Thread should be renamed to "Options for controlling usage of RAM"
|
Post your comment
|
