Michael Ströder michael@stroeder.com schrieb am 30.07.2019 um 16:42 in
Nachricht 2205c354-382e-bcce-3c8f-f3d852752e2d@stroeder.com:
On 7/30/19 11:20 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Don't get me wrong: We can make it big (CPUs, RAM, Disks, energy
consumption
,cooling requirement), but isn't "making it small" more of an art? Today's software mostly isn't "using a lot of memory" but rather "wasting a lot of memory" IMHO.
lmdb's memory and disk footprint is small. My Æ-DIR development VMs are really small (~200 MB RAM) and there are various web components running on the providers.
I even tested this stuff with Raspberry PI model 1. And it did not consume too much resources. (Of course SD cards have really slow disk I/O.)
AFAICS there is only one case where back-mdb is significantly slower than back-hdb: ITS#8875. But this is actively worked on.
So stop spreading FUD about lmdb. If you provide real-world evidence
Actually this just is the impression I got reading this list. I read a lot about running out of memory, having rebuild the databases as they grow out of bounds, having a database size three time the data size, lock-ups, and all the stuff. I'm not spreading FUD. I'm just worried from what I read here.
that back-mdb consumes more resources than back-hdb then present seriously worked out test results.
Ciao, Michael.