Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!gatech!bbn!mit-eddie!killer!elg
From: elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: VM needed for rapid startup
Message-ID: <4257@killer.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 88 05:14:23 GMT
References: <5135@nsc.nsc.com>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 22

in article <5135@nsc.nsc.com>, stevew@nsc.nsc.com (Steve Wilson) says:
> In article <19496@beta.UUCP> jlg@beta.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>>This problem is an example of the original statement I made on this subject:
>>when the ratio of CPU speed to disk speed is high, virtual memory is not
>>as attractive.  The problem is not solved by such schemes as having larger

Au contraire, virtual memory is not the villain you make it out to be. If you
don't have VM, then your memory must be big enough to hold all of the program
and data. If your memory is big enough to hold all program and data, plus you
have VM, then, once the program is loaded into memory, there will be none of
the "thrashing" that you so decry.... it takes little more time to page-fault
a program into memory than it takes to load it straight into RAM, especially
with today's faster CPU's.

Note that the above was gleaned from the net the last time the VM argument
came up (6 months ago?). Never re-invent etc. etc. (net.memory, how brief thou
art!).  

--
    Eric Lee Green                     {cuae2,ihnp4}!killer!elg
         Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509              
"Is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse?"