On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Daniel Koepke wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, George wrote:
>
> ->As has already been pointed out, it makes the system think it's not using
> ->as much RAM. Why not extend the idea and compress your room descriptions?
> ->Or implement your own disk swapper? You could get really fancy and write
> ->your own memory management subsystem. Why stop there? A MUD kernel!
>
> We save a whole 400k in in-memory room descriptions according to the
> above; which isn't a lot considering that we don't factor in the space
> we loose by adding in the lines of code to do in-memory compression
> comparable to what "gzip -9" does. You could probably squeeze a lot
> more memory out of the MUD by removing all of those weapons your
> immortals created for themselves...:P~
>
> -dak
I'm quite afraid that I must agree with dak, if only for the reason that
somebody was thinking of naming somebody else a legend(and it wasn't
me(either of the people)). Secondly, I don't see memory use as a big
problem with CircleMUD. My server doesn't charge me by the RAM I use, I
suppose that if I really want to do my (MSP?) a favour, I can try to use
less RAM, but it doesn't really interest me. Doesn't Circle have one of
the lower memory uses, among MUDs, anyways? With the pools of memory, or
whatever was in the docs?
\ /
\/
/\
/ \
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST