|
#Worldle #612 4/6 (100%)
π©π©π©π©β¬β¬οΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π©π
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
hard no map
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 829 5/6
π¨β¬π¨β¬β¬
π¨β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬π©π¨β¬β¬
β¬π©β¬π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 829 3/6
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨β¬π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 829 5/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬π©β¬π©β¬
β¬π©β¬π©π©
π©π©β¬π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 829 3/6
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
β¬π©β¬π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
My coworker has a brand new 16GB laptop.
16GB should be enough for most workloads, or so you'd think.
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
We're running "the usual", such as Outlook, Spotify, SourceTree, Teams, Chrome, OneDrive, etc.
Now, with only two Visual Studio instances and a SQL Server Management Studio instance open, SQL Server (the service) just chokes.
We're getting timeouts like you wouldn't believe, nothing works.
After some digging, we found the reason to be memory exhaustion, 16GB just went up in smoke and it's at its peak at a constant 90+%.
I've had 16GB and even less in the past, and running a local SQL Server instance together with VS and SSMS has never been a problem.
At this point it's become unworkable.
You'd think that maybe the memory would be more evenly distributed and that some processes would write to disk instead and become a bit slower.
But instead, SQL Server just pretty much stops working altogether.
Closing a VS instance fixes the problem, but sometimes we just need to have two instances open.
My coworker changed his virtual memory page file to use 20GB and that fixes the problem, but doesn't feel right.
Anyone have any ideas what the problem could be?*
* Is this a programming question? Is it a SQL Server question? Is it a general computing question? I'm not sure, so I'm posting it here.
|
|
|
|
|
Not too long ago I posted for my new PC I wanted 128GB of RAM. I got the usual I'm crazy type replies (it's the Internet). But, I gotta say... more RAM means spending less time (which is more valuable) than dealing with this type of nonsense. And I'm sure in a few years MS will make sure 128GB is not much. But, at least it'll carry me over until then.
At the very least, a dev workstation should not have less than 32GB these days. Some laptops are upgradable, so it's worth seeing if you can toss a new stick in it. If there are two physical drives in the laptop, you can always put the page file on the second drive to at least help that way. If it's on a non-system volume, then there will be less disk access going on to slow it down.
Outside of that, you're screwed buddy. 
Jeremy Falcon
modified 11hrs 10mins ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I have 32Gb right now (not dev'ing so much lately) but still 2 slots free.
The first time I feel like something should be working better, I buy 2x32 right away.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I decided to take the elephant by the tusks, so to speak, and ordered a new Dell XPS laptop fully loaded - I9 processor, 64G RAM, 1TB SSD drive and a quad density touch screen. Was pricey, but this will last me for the next 5+ years without mucking about with upgrades. Did the same with my previous laptop, and it served me well fo 10+ years. Not screwing around anymore... And this thing is awesomely fast. It can do a VS update 3x faster than my work computer. I have no complaints...
|
|
|
|
|
I have 64GB on my work computer and WSL(Windows Subsystem for Linux) fairly regularly gobbles up all the available CPU and memory, so occasionally I have to issue a taskkill on the wslservice service.
Seems to be Docker related in my case.
My take is that memory is assumed to be cheap nowadays so a lot of services will eat through memory.
βThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.β
β Christopher Hitchens
modified 15hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Seems to be Docker related in my case.
Docker is one of those things that should be used very, very sparingly and only if you have a good reason. Unfortunately so many devs just want to jump on the hype train without a thought in the world about how things actually work.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Unfortunately so many devs just want to jump on the hype train without a thought in the world
I didn't have a say in the matter 
βThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.β
β Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I will say this, if I find myself in serious need of a docker container over WSL, believe it or not a raspberry pi is fast enough to do most things for a single user. So, running a container inside a pi is totally doable.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Memory issues are...
I forgot what I was going to say?
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.1.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
My work PC is a bit less than 2 years old and with 16gb of memory I was running in the same problems with SQL Server and VS2022 running together. What worked for me was disabling the fancy "AI" code suggestions, the background process for it was gobbling 1.5GB+ per VS instance, that's definitely not worth the couple extra lines of code I had to write.
|
|
|
|
|
Good one.
We ended up fixing this by giving SQL Server at least 1024 MB of memory, always.
Having a bit less memory isn't a problem for any other application, they just get a little slow (not noticable though).
|
|
|
|
|
I was gonna say - a default install of SQL allows it to take up all the RAM it can get ahold of. If you limit it, the rest of the system should remain a lot more responsive.
|
|
|
|
|
Your browsers will often take the most memory; are constantly doing "call backs". Each tab is another instance; for the most part.
I uninstalled Chrome because it was ALWAYS busy; even when I wasn't explicitly "loading" it.
I use Edge and FireFox and watch everything in Task Manager. I stream movies while programming, etc. with 16GB. Just know what's going on.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I use Edge and FireFox and watch everything in Task Manager
Click 'Open Resource Monitor' at the bottom, and select the 'Memory' tab to get a more detailed view.
I run with 16 GB, and have never seen that as a limitation to my activities. Not even when running VS. I do not run any database system, though. Right now, Resource Monitor says that only 99 MB is 'Free'. But 9900 MB is 'Standby'. It claims that 6126 MB is 'In Use'.
So I start SysInternal RamMap to do a little cleanup: Empty Working Sets, Modified list and Standby list. In Use drops to 987 MB, Free goes up to 15215 MB.
This is of course just for a short time. Even though the working sets are small at the moment, it won't take long before the processes bring in some new pages. Also, when I cleared the Standby list, if some process actually requests some of those pages, they have to be fetched from disk, at a cost.
Yet, it takes a long time, with much activity, before the 'In Use' grows even close to 6 GB. I did a RamMap cleanup and went through all the 18 browser tabs, all the 7 Word documents paging them to the next page, changed to another directory in the Explorer windows and pulled up the menu in Network Connections, and inspected Resource monitor. That caused In Use to jump up to 2357 MB, and some Standby. 12.5 GB is still Free. I know from experience that it will take quite some time to build In Use back up to 6 GB with the applications I am running now.
That is with 7 (large!) MS-Word documents open, one single-tab web browser (Edge), another one (FireFox) with 17 open tabs. Two Explorer windows are open. One Network Connections window. One Resource Monitor, one RamMap. 14 windows in total.
I have tried to make a composition of application that I might be running at the same time - right now I am not doing sound editing, video editing or program development. I rarely do all of those at the same time, but even when I set it up I am not reaching 16 GB in use. (Part of the explanation may be that both my MSO, sound and video editor are several years old, made to run with a lot less resources available.)
I have another 16 GB of memory sticks sitting on my shelf (bought for another PC for a project that never materialized). I could plug them into my main PC, but as there has never been a need for more RAM, I never got around to doing it.
I believe that a lot of people claiming that they "must" have 32 (or 64 or 128) GB, and "only" 16 MB makes their PC slow as molasses, never really checked if RAM shortage really is the problem. It can be, but in lots of cases, it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
In most cases, it's housekeeping. My "main user" thinks nothing of opening tab, after tab, after tab ...
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you realize that Edge now uses the same core chromium engine as Chrome?
|
|
|
|
|
You realize one is "wrapped" by Google and the other by MS?
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Of course. And is one really all that much better than the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: SQL Server - limit memory usage via Server memory configuration options - SQL Server | Microsoft Learn
The problem wasn't the limit, the problem was that there simply wasn't any memory left.
We fixed the issue by saying SQL Server should grab a minimum (and maximum) amount of memory, 1024 MB.
Works like a charm now 
All the other apps can do with a little less memory 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
