> > Of course, to be fair, there may have been a *reason* for not doing it > that way before.... >Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017. * According to perfunctory google search: http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-historic-price-of-ram/
Andrew Holway wrote:>> >> Of course, to be fair, there may have been a *reason* for not doing it >> that way before.... >> > Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went > from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for > things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server > platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home > is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components > built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017. > > * According to perfunctory google search: > http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-historic-price-of-ram/a) I was speaking in much more general terms than just software. b) Stuff built then will run unbelievable fast on modern systems - and no, in the nineties, we were not manually swapping. c) If it fulfils its intended purpose, why would you redefine it as not fit for that purpose? d) And then there stuff that I'm not sure of the purpose... like eclipse, that needs 2GB to run... for an editor. mark "my web pages proudly built in vi!"
Le 12/04/2017 ? 19:41, Andrew Holway a ?crit :> Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went > from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for > things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server > platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home > is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components > built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017.Back in 2013 I did some Linux training for a company in Montpellier. The first week the server racks hadn't been delivered yet, so we were stuck. In a cupboard, I found an antique Dell Poweredge 1300 server that was out of service, made around 1997 or so. I dusted it off, found a power cable, a monitor, a network cable and a keyboard and connected the thing. It had a P-III 500 MHz processor, 3 x 9 GB SCSI disks and a whooping 128 MB of RAM, and not a single USB port (only parallel). I happened to have the three CD-Rom set of Slackware 14.0 32-bit, so I gave that a spin. The installation took quite some time, but after the initial reboot, I managed to login, and the base system took no more than 15 MB RAM. So the first week we began working the course on this machine (which we aptly named "grossebertha", because it was a noisy monster). After a week or so, our new hardware arrived, and since the Windows trainer complained about "8 GB RAM not being enough for a Windows server installation", we decided just to nag him a bit to see how far we could take the course on our old machine. In the end, we had NTP, Dnsmasq, Samba, NIS+NFS, a LAMP stack, Squid, SquidGuard and SquidAnalyzer, and a few other things running on this old monster. Cheers, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'?glise - 30730 Montpezat Web : http://www.microlinux.fr Mail : info at microlinux.fr T?l. : 04 66 63 10 32
On Wed, April 12, 2017 1:31 pm, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:> Le 12/04/2017 ? 19:41, Andrew Holway a ?crit : >> Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memorywent>> from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions madefor>> things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common forserver>> platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here athome>> is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that softwarecomponents>> built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017. > > Back in 2013 I did some Linux training for a company in Montpellier. Thefirst week the server racks hadn't been delivered yet, so we were stuck. In a cupboard, I found an antique Dell Poweredge 1300 server that was out of service, made around 1997 or so. I dusted it off, found a power cable, a monitor, a network cable and a keyboard and connected the thing. It had a P-III 500 MHz processor, 3 x 9 GB SCSI disks and a whooping 128 MB of RAM, and not a single USB port (only parallel).> > I happened to have the three CD-Rom set of Slackware 14.0 32-bit, so Igave that a spin. The installation took quite some time, but after the initial reboot, I managed to login, and the base system took no more than 15 MB RAM.> > So the first week we began working the course on this machine (which weaptly named "grossebertha", because it was a noisy monster). After a week or so, our new hardware arrived, and since the Windows trainer complained about "8 GB RAM not being enough for a Windows server installation", we decided just to nag him a bit to see how far we could take the course on our old machine. In the end, we had NTP, Dnsmasq, Samba, NIS+NFS, a LAMP stack, Squid, SquidGuard and SquidAnalyzer, and a few other things running on this old monster. When Windows 2000 came out some called it "bloated pig". Some 6 years down the road Linux started catching up ;-) Then we stopped laughing about Windows. Valeri> > Cheers, > > Niki > > -- > Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables > 7, place de l'?glise - 30730 Montpezat > Web : http://www.microlinux.fr > Mail : info at microlinux.fr > T?l. : 04 66 63 10 32 > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 07:41:33PM +0200, Andrew Holway wrote:> > > > Of course, to be fair, there may have been a *reason* for not doing it > > that way before.... > > > > Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went > from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for > things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server > platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home > is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components > built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017.Just another historic note. Until System V, Release 4, circa 1989 or 90, AT&T's Unix ran on computers with a 64KB memory space. That was just the code though, the data, static, dynamic, and stack were in a second 64KB space. That was all the pdp-11 allowed. The merger of BSD code with AT&T code in SVR4 pushed it off of the pdp-11s. But it still ran on things like the AT&T 3B-20 which had a 1MB virtual memory addressing scheme. Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie jon at jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:> Le 12/04/2017 ? 19:41, Andrew Holway a ?crit : > > Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went > > from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for > > things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server > > platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home > > is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components > > built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017. > > Back in 2013 I did some Linux training for a company in Montpellier. The > first week the server racks hadn't been delivered yet, so we were stuck. > In a cupboard, I found an antique Dell Poweredge 1300 server that was > out of service, made around 1997 or so. I dusted it off, found a power > cable, a monitor, a network cable and a keyboard and connected the > thing. It had a P-III 500 MHz processor, 3 x 9 GB SCSI disks and a > whooping 128 MB of RAM, and not a single USB port (only parallel). >Similar, much earlier tale of my own. Doing Intro Unix training at a client site. The classroom had PCs with Hummingbird's XDMCP software to remotely connect to a monster HP unix system. On Monday arrival I learned their HP license expired over the weekend and remote access was not possible. I had my laptop, either a Pentium or P II, running Solaris x86. I put it on the network and had the students point their XDMCP to it. Ran the first two days of class with 12 students plux the console all running X graphical logins. On Wednesday they had us switch to the HP. Some students asked if they could switch back because the laptop seemed more responsive. Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie jon at jgcomp.com 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H) Reston, VA 20190 (703) 935-6720 (C)
Speaking of vi, I'm amazed at just how powerful it is. (And I'm not being sarcastic, there's not much I've searched for in regard to its capabilities that I haven't found). No thread drift here... ----- Original Message ----- From: "m roth" <m.roth at 5-cent.us> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:08:25 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] humor (was Re: OT: systemd Poll) Andrew Holway wrote:>> >> Of course, to be fair, there may have been a *reason* for not doing it >> that way before.... >> > Between the early 1990's and early 2000's the price of a GB of memory went > from ~$100,000 to ~$1000*. I guess a lot of the design decisions made for > things like init were focussed on this. In 1995 is was common for server > platforms to have 32Mb ram whereas the kernel alone in my PC here at home > is consuming just over 500MB. It seems reasonable that software components > built in 1997 will not be fit for purpose in 2017. > > * According to perfunctory google search: > http://www.statisticbrain.com/average-historic-price-of-ram/a) I was speaking in much more general terms than just software. b) Stuff built then will run unbelievable fast on modern systems - and no, in the nineties, we were not manually swapping. c) If it fulfils its intended purpose, why would you redefine it as not fit for that purpose? d) And then there stuff that I'm not sure of the purpose... like eclipse, that needs 2GB to run... for an editor. mark "my web pages proudly built in vi!" _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/12/2017 02:08 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> d) And then there stuff that I'm not sure of the purpose... like eclipse, > that > needs 2GB to run... for an editor. > > mark "my web pages proudly built in vi!"And mine on medon.htt-consult.com done with Geany. Using a editor that understands html tags so you can collapse ones not being edited does make life simpler. Also lets you know, indirectly, when your copy and pasting messed up the tag pairing.