Re: Locking kdecore into memory

[David Jarvie]

On Tuesday 23 January 2007 20:34, Gary L. Greene, Jr. wrote:
>On Tuesday 23 January 2007 14:02, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
>> Leo Savernik napisał(a):
>> > Am Dienstag, 23. Januar 2007 19:17 schrieb Lubos Lunak:
>> >>> On my backup machine with 128MB it is a lot!
>
>From what I've noted, the total that would need locked would be around 20 to 
>30MB. This isn't much on most hardware that exists. For those that have only 
>128 MB of RAM, I'd recommend that they move up to at least 256MB, since 
>overall performance with the normal set of kernel daemons, system processes, 
>X, and typical KDE usage[1] comes in between 212 and 240MB of RAM with the 
>empirical testing I've done. All post 2000 hardware can handle 256MB without 
>issue, and would be fairly cheap to get the added RAM.

Your recommendation to get at least 256 MB is perfectly sensible, but the fact 
remains that some people still _do_ use machines with less memory than that. 
With small memory, they may well be aware of the potential for OOM 
situations and take precautions against it. They wouldn't necessarily welcome 
memory locking if that made normal performance (which isn't likely to be great 
anyway) worse.

--
David Jarvie.
KAlarm author & maintainer.
http://www.astrojar.org.uk/linux/kalarm.html