>>> Michael Ströder <[email protected]> schrieb am 30.07.2019 um 16:42 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > On 7/30/19 11:20 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> Don't get me wrong: We can make it big (CPUs, RAM, Disks, energy consumption >> ,cooling requirement), but isn't "making it small" more of an art? Today's >> software mostly isn't "using a lot of memory" but rather "wasting a lot of >> memory" IMHO. > > lmdb's memory and disk footprint is small. My Æ-DIR development VMs are > really small (~200 MB RAM) and there are various web components running > on the providers. > > I even tested this stuff with Raspberry PI model 1. > And it did not consume too much resources. > (Of course SD cards have really slow disk I/O.) > > AFAICS there is only one case where back-mdb is significantly slower > than back-hdb: ITS#8875. But this is actively worked on. > > So stop spreading FUD about lmdb. If you provide real-world evidence
Actually this just is the impression I got reading this list. I read a lot about running out of memory, having rebuild the databases as they grow out of bounds, having a database size three time the data size, lock-ups, and all the stuff. I'm not spreading FUD. I'm just worried from what I read here. > that back-mdb consumes more resources than back-hdb then present > seriously worked out test results. > > Ciao, Michael.
