[80c] Virtual Memory
jbeezez at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 10:39:31 CET 2012
Apologies for vagueness. Yeah I think so, the standard stuff when setting
up a fresh install.
It just occurred to me that from (what was to me anyway) the earliest
points where you could use computers for tweaking/stretching/recording
audio (on Macs at the time) in the 1990's, virtual memory was an absolute
I always avoided it from when I jumped ship to xp at the beginning of the
00's but Linux-land has always had it and I never gave it much thought - up
Soz if it's not really very interesting - for me starting afresh should
mean questioning all previously held assumptions.
Obviously I would like to squeeze as much ooomph out of my machine as
possible but I don't want it to be counter-productive.
Another boring question that I'm sure I could find various answers too from
searching around but I would like to hear the communities thoughts:
If virtual memory is fine for audio, how far can you push it ratio-wise;
physical - virtual? Hard drive space is soooo cheap these days why don't I
give my machine 32/64/4096 Gig of virtual RAM then? And I can video edit
everyone's stuff all day long:)
I do *get* that there's only so much data needed to be held at any one time
- in live laptop performance, for example, I like having a buffer with a
send from a mixing desk containing a minutes worth of everyones audio which
I can dip into at will. Now that's not going to contain more than a couple
of hundred meg but I've also got other stuff going on and it all stacks
up. There was a recent post on the pd-list where HCS and a few others
basically rubbished the idea of splitting tasks across cores (I have 2)
because Pd is already doing lots of jiggery-pockery as it is.
Not sure if that helps but it's the questioning of previously held
assumptions that interests me most here (then again it could also just be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the eightycolumn