Suggested partioning for 3 drives and RAM suggestions

[Kevin O'Gorman]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Collins wrote:

> On Sunday 28 December 2003 07:21, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > I have never had reason to regret more ram. The more the better, IMHO.
> 
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 10:18:39AM -0500, Harry G wrote:
> > > Also, I can put in up to 1056 meg of ram.  Is it worth it, or would 528
> > > be fine?  (Not doing a lot of massive spreedsheet calcs or anything).
> >
> 
> Yes, the more the merrier, but I have trouble visualizing a desktop linux 
> system that ever needs more than the 528 (strange size, is this really 512?).  
> My current machine only has 256 (less the 64 used by the onboard video card), 
> and it performs like a dream even with a memory hog like kde.
> 
> I would save your money for something else like a dvd writer or a firewire 
> card or ??? rather than adding more ram.
> 
> YMMV
> 
> 

YMMV, indeed.  My current machine has 2GB RAM, and I'm thinking of 
doubling that.  I've been working on a hobby/research project for a few
years now that needs it.  Sometimes it's because I'm running a number
of concurrent tasks, but usually it's because I've got this helper Java
application that builds a HUUUUGE live data structure.  I've trained
Java to use all the memory it can for the heap, and it does indeed 
use it.

Any single Java instance is limited to 2GB by Linux on a 386 box,
but I sometimes want to compare 2 or more of these monsters.  The easy
way is just to add more RAM.  (Don't even think about using VM, swapping
is not a workable solutions).

Another way would be to rewrite the Java code, and although I have
the source, I don't have the time.

++ kevin


-- 
Dr. Kevin O'Gorman  (805) 756-2986  mailto:kogorman at calpoly.edu
Home Page: http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/~kogorman