OOVM & Resilient
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Feb 11 08:43:53 UTC 2004
The VM of lars is 32 bits so I guess it scales. At least he told me
that he thought of that.
On 11 févr. 04, at 01:52, smallsqueak.net wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>> As for the sizes, my own motivations are still these:
>> - Make the system start as quickly as possible, including initial
>> download. My current desired upper bound for the download wait is
>> something like ten seconds on a typical broadband connection. Roughly,
>> that's 10 seconds at 1Mbit/sec, or 10Mbit, call it 1MB transfer size.
>> - Get each of the VM and snapshot transfer sizes to be under 100KB, so
>> as to invoke the "under three digits" psychological effect. :) I'm
>> currently at at a 91K snapshot and 99K VM. I'm not so concerned with
>> runtime memory footprint, since my targets are all relatively
>> memory-wise (desktops, laptops, PDAs, phones).
>> The 1MB figure is probably a reasonable upper bound to assume.
>> My guess is that the lower bound for the functionality I want is a
>> 50K snapshot and 50K VM.
> This 50K/50K sounds good, but how well does it scale ?
> Bear in mind that a full blown image, from an extensible
> Squatty one, 50K will become something like 10M ? ;-)
>> (Squat progress messages, including vague guesses
>> at release timing, at http://netjam.org/squat )
> I couldn't find any release timing there, can you post it here .
More information about the Squeak-dev