update-manager --no-focus-on-map ??

[rikona]

Friday, January 1, 2016, 2:47:54 AM, Ralf wrote:

> Happy new year!

> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:14:02 -0800, rikona wrote:
>>My next box will have a LOT more memory!! :-)

> My too, but it's not needed, it's just nice to have more RAM than
> needed.

> As long as there shouldn't be a program that eats nearly 100% of the
> CPU resources, you don't need to worry about the CPU usage of
> individual programs. IMO it's better to take a look at the overall CPU
> usage. Somebody already mentioned the threads. It's annoying, in the
> past a program of the kit family run more than 50 threads, this is
> against Linux policy.

> Opinions about RAM usage are tricky, since Linux does use all
> available RAM in a very smart way. As long as there is less or no
> swap usage, even usage of nearly the complete available RAM not
> necessarily means that you need more RAM.

In my case I get to the point where all Mem + all Swp is full
according to top, and the virt may be 2-3X as large as RAM + SWAP. I
don't really understand how that is managed, but I do tend to have
LOTS of problems when that occurs. The big user is Opera - I may have
up to 150 tabs open in several instances.

Even though there are 100+ tabs open, I have looked a MANY more. Are
these being swapped out to virt space? And if swap is full, where do
they go? Is that what's behind the problem?

> $ df

> shows what dirs are tmpfs, a file system in memory.

Interesting... that does not seem to be large now [but Opera is VERY
small now [after recently crashing].

> Ubuntu's default is that /tmp isn't tmpfs, but it's nice to change
> this, assumed you should compile large programs in /tmp. I've got 4
> GiB RAM, even if I allow /tmp as tmpfs to use 3 GiB instead of the
> default half of the memory, it's not enough to build web browsers
> such as firefox and icecat, so I stay with /tmp not being a tmpfs.
> Apart from this even 2 GiB would be enough for even doing RAM hungry
> audio productions. I plan to buy a new PC and directly will buy as
> much RAM as possible, since this could be comfortable, but IMO it is
> not really needed. OTOH it might be useful to spend the money not
> for the RAM, but instead for a good computer case. I payed very much
> for a professional audio card, but all computer cases I ever owned
> were and still are a PITA, I got them for free and one for less
> money.

I use a moderately inexpensive case too, but they're OK. I did get rid
of a free case which was reeeeally difficult to deal with
mechanically. :-)

Thanks for the info...

-- 

 rikona