In todays computer world, with massive quantities of memory,
is dynamic memory allocation really worth the hastle? Computers have so much memory that a couple megabytes should not make a difference...I mean even in networks where the memory is all stored on one computer, that one computer has like a terabyte or so of memory. Is saving a couple of bytes per variable really that important...I dont think so...What do you think?
Dynamic memory allocation is very important. If you keep on allocating memory and never release the memory, your memory will soon be full, no matter how many memory you have. On large computer systems, there are usually also large applications running.
Saving a couple of bytes per variable, for example using a char instead of an int, is in large systems not a big problem. In embedded systems it still can be.
I have a 5 computer network, all connecting through the internet and storing files via me. I have a terrabyte in my computer, and i feel that yes, DMA is worth it.I mean even in networks where the memory is all stored on one computer, that one computer has like a terabyte or so of memory. Is saving a couple of bytes per variable really that important...I dont think so...What do you think?
Just my free two cents.
as i know it when you say DMA you are talking about direct memory access. maybe there are more than 1 dmas
in this case he means dynamic memory allocation
You have 1,000 Gigs of storage in you computer! Great crap man. What do you need all that for?
Blue
::to Betazep:: I still don't believe that he has a terrabyte RAID setup...Originally posted by Betazep
You have 1,000 Gigs of storage in you computer! Great crap man. What do you need all that for?
>>> that one computer has like a terabyte or so of memory
I don't think you know what you are talking about - sorry.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
You don't. Why not? 10 100Gb SCSI Drives in a RAID 0 is almost as common as 20 100Gb SCSI Drives in a RAID 1. Get yours today!Originally posted by BMJ
::to Betazep:: I still don't believe that he has a terrabyte RAID setup...
Just kidding. He probably meant something other than that, though. I assumed storage which on second read probably isn't the case.
I think we are talking about memory, though. So it must be a terrabyte of memory? Or a terrabyte of data transfer... something along those lines.
Blue
If I had a terrabye of space, I'd be using like 3% of it
On this OS partition, I would be using .6% (6G of 1000G) if my simple math is correct.
This is my most frequently used OS, webserver, ftp, et al. I don't think I could fill up a 100G even.
Blue
> I don't think I could fill up a 100G even.
You could, but who would want to, or even have the time.
You'd have to have ATLEAST a 185 kilobyte per second broadband connection, and download for hours. Infact, find a good downloading tool that lets you program your computer to download files. Then, while you're sleeping, it's accumlating files.
With the fastest connection that will STILL take forever, not to mention you'd fine no use for half of it.
Cmon! Who here ACTUALLY enjoys or likes software, videos, music, etc. that would take up 1,000gb of space?
Maybe pictures of electronic circuit boards for JAMMA arcade cabinets, with the manuals, all high quality snaps. The entire MAME rom set(will be about 7gb after this new release with area 51, both cruisins, both killer instincts, primal rage, and war gods soon). TONS of computer games. Every 1gb game you could get your hands on.
Point being, nobody has that many hobbies.
(I have quite a few electronic hobbies...but, not even CLOSE to that many..damn)
* biggest 'stand-alone' hard drive I've seen is 320gb and that costs about 2,500 US dollars.
The world is waiting. I must leave you now.
lol just get WD's 200gb $300 drive, they rock
were not getting into another debate on wether or not i have a terrabyte, i do, i don't care if u don't believe me :P
I have around 15 gigs taken up.
WTF, out of 1024 gigs you only have 15 taken up !!! WTF WTF WTF
