[opensource-dev] Script Memory Limits UI

[Morgaine]

I agree completely, Marine.

We're being given a choice of two options which together make no sense, and
worse, represent an undue burden on scripters and a regression into the
distant history of Computing.

The system should define a *large* but *hard* limit to the maximum memory
allocated per script, while at runtime, each script should automatically be
allocated only as much as it needs to run, without needing to request any
specific allocation.

Any other strategy is both a waste of memory and a burden on developers
(most of whom are not experts), as well as a return to antique manual
allocation which is best left to the mists of history.


Morgaine.





==========================================

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Marine Kelley <marinekelley at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well we have two mutually exclusive solutions here.
>
> Either Mono scripts are given a hard memory limit that we (the scripters)
> can change within the scripts, with all the overhead work that it implies
> (i.e. modifying hundreds of scripts before issuing an update, and having to
> know upfront how much memory will be taken exactly), which means that in
> regards to the scripts memory usage UI, the script will use exactly as much
> as the limit it has requested, no matter whether it really uses it or not.
> This gives wasted memory and false information.
>
> Or, Mono scripts are given a hard memory limit that we cannot change, and
> they report exactly as many bytes as they use at any time. But we shouldn't
> be able to change the limit ourselves, because it wouldn't make sense to do
> so, it would only be restraining ourselves if we set less than 64k, and
> wasting memory space if we set more than 64k.
>
> In both cases, the question of whether the script crashes when reaching the
> limit or not is not related.
>
> I seriously, and I mean seriously, think that choosing the first option is
> going to hurt the established scripters very badly, and therefore the grid
> as a whole. To me scripts should report exactly as much memory as they use,
> not more, and should not require the scripters to modify them to report
> something that could be computed by the sims more accurately anyway.
>
> Of course it is tempting to tell the scripters "you can now decide how much
> memory to allow, and that way you are certain it will report the amount you
> have set", as much as it is tempting to shift the workload of allocating
> script memory onto the scripters since LL can't seem do it.
>
> Remember, we are now going to have limits on a service that didn't have
> them before. For the same price. All in the sake of stabilizing the grid. Ok
> for me. This will already hurt scripters who will have to adapt bad scripts.
> But now we are told we are going to also adapt good scripts as well ! I
> repeat, this is unacceptable.
>
> Marine
>
>
>
> On 7 March 2010 03:02, Frans <mrfrans at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the dynamic vs fixed memory usage. Of course it would make sense to
>> have dynamic memory usage, but I haven't seen a response yet on how to solve
>> the problem that Kelly described, about scripts suddenly running out of
>> available memory to use, when they fill up lists with info, etc. And break
>> because of it. Or is this considered not to be a big problem?
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20100307/29047180/attachment.htm