×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
The idea that someone would design an application that would allocate
some storage for each transaction, and then _not_ free it after
processing that transaction, when there are potentially "millions of
transactions" seems like a very poor design, IMHO. That also sounds
like a "long running" batch application, in which case, it should manage
its memory usage appropriately and not just leave it up to the system to
"clean up"...
An example could be to "mark" the beginning of such a "batch" of
transactions, and then, at the end of "proccessing" those transactions,
"release" the storage used by that "batch" of transactions.
> On 10/8/2010 2:03 PM, Dennis Lovelady wrote:
Everything is relative. If you've allocated a few KB of memory it's
probably no big deal one way or the other. But if you allocate some memory
for each transaction and you have processed millions of transactions, it is,
at a minimum, irresponsible to horde that memory with the hopes that the
system will someday clean it up.
Think 'scalable' and your tune may change. YMMV.
Dennis Lovelady
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
