Am 23.10.2006 um 22:55 schrieb Philippe Marschall:

> 2006/10/23, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
>> Am 23.10.2006 um 21:30 schrieb Philippe Marschall:
>>
>> > 2006/10/23, Cees de Groot <cdegroot at gmail.com>:
>> >> On 10/23/06, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>  
>> wrote:
>> >> > > > So about 300 Euros?
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > 64bit VM?
>> >> >
>> >> You pay the hosting bills for a new box? ;)
>> >
>> > I'm willing to pay 2 GB of RAM if that's what is needed to run  
>> Pier.
>> > That Squeak can't handle this is a Squeak specific limitation  
>> that has
>> > nothing to do with the point that memory is that cheap.
>> > As pointed out numerous times on squeak-dev and disputed by  
>> none, all
>> > VM related issues can be fixed easily by just fixing the VM.  
>> This is
>> > no problem since the VM is open source.
>>
>> If we had a transactional virtual object memory that's continuously
>> saved to disk (think OOZE/LOOM), that might be viable. Perhaps with
>> Magma you could have almost the same semantics, just be careful what
>> you touch. But not with the current object memory. No way. Not if you
>> care about the data.
>>
>> It's not about RAM being cheap or not. It's about designing for the
>> common and the worst case. Why you would want to bring in gigabytes
>> of data if the working set is just a few megabytes is beyond me.
>
> The point was just that holding the whole wiki in the memory is no
> problem memory or money wise.

No, this was not the point at all. The point was that *even* if you  
could have as many Gigabytes of RAM as you want, holding everything  
in the image *without* being backed by some permanent storage does  
not scale, and therefore is unsuited for real deployment.

> That the vm, like in many other cases too, is the real problem (and
> I'm quite sure the Java VM would be up to it) is a completely
> unrealted issue.

It's news to me that the Java VM supports an object image. Or that  
any real-world system on Java would just load a snapshot of *all* its  
data and save it *in whole* later - I sincerely doubt that.

- Bert -