>> Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com> schrieb am
30.07.2019 um 16:42 in
On 7/30/19 11:20 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: We can make it big (CPUs, RAM, Disks, energy
> ,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
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.