> > Having all the data in RAM scales the same way as having all the data
> > on disk. Linearly. IIRC Google can hold almost the entire web in RAM.
> > So there is virtually no limit to that. I know this is not clever. I
> > just say it is possible and the cost is not excessive (holding Minnow
> > in RAM, not the web).
>
> I thought we were having a serious discussion, and not just pointing
> fingers at RAM prices. Or pointing to non-existent VM technology, as
> you did in another thread.

I strongly second Philippe.

The Squeak VM technology will simply die, if it is unable to
efficiently address more than 2 GB of data and process its
calculations on only 1 CPU. There are technologies like memory-mapped
files that transparently give an unlimited amount of RAM (if the GC
was a bit smarter ...)

> I stand by my assessment that holding *everything* including all
> versions of all pages and also all uploaded files in RAM is just
> plain stupid.

We are used to be called ridiculous and stupid. No problem.

And yes, we do not keep files in RAM. We store them on the file-system
so that Apache can serve them quickly: reading the file into the image
and pushing it into a socket way too slow anyway. And yes, Apache
caches often requested files in the RAM.

Lukas

-- 
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch