What did you make of "Tony's Chocolonely"? Dutch, but rather too sweet and not dark enough for my taste,plus the 'crazy paving' break lines instead of a rectangular grid was annoying. However, it seems to have disapeared: not surprised as I didn't bother with a second bar.
OTOH I usually have a bar of Lindt 90% dark in the house, even though I eat very little chocolate.
Never saw that one - probably just as well.
With that a little goes a long way.
Others have suggested why the default might be no swap for ther "standard" SD card run Pi. Alot of replies where off-topic without the courtesy of changing the subject line - sigh.
You don't say what OS you are using. But I believe PiOS encourages the use of a swap file not a swap partition, using the utuility dphys-swapfile - see man page. Just editing dphys-swapfile config file (/etc/dphys-swapfile - at least on my old version PiOS) and restarting should work.
Or running the dphys-swapfile utility would suffice ...
sudo dphys-swapfile setup sudo dphys-swapfile swapon
Goodle throws up some pages
Surely the default for Raspberry Pi OS is a silly 100MB swap file on the SD card.
sc> > Since you brought it up: in the 70s and 80s (and even into the very earl sc> sc> > 90s), sc> > 1 MB of RAM was unimaginable, and 1 GB was absolutely impossible. sc> sc> It didn't take that long to get to 1 MB.
And yet, it was still literally unimaginable for some pretty dominant players in the field, specifically one Bill Gates. I did some checking, though, and even the IBM clone army broke the 640k barrier by '85, so it turns out I was mistaken. Takes a while for technology to reach us savages in Canada, I guess...
sc> The 68K desktops (Mac, Amiga, etc.) of the second half of the '80s mostly sc> sc> shipped with at least 1 MB.
I have never been a fan of Crapple, mostly because of their business practices. And after my first 286, I never looked at a 68k-based machine again. Sure, it took Intel a while to get there, but when they did, they blew Motorola straight out of the water.
McDoob SysOp, PiBBS pibbs.sytes.net
... 640K ought to be enough for anybody. -Bill Gates, 1981.
Exactly. I used to buy the Bournville chocolate. Occasionally a milk chocolate fruit and nut bar. I bought precisely one post takeover and threw it away uneaten
Why marketing people think that the _only_ thing that matters in a consumer product is the marketing, is beyond me.
][Swap parition location]
RISC OS (a microcomputer OS) didn't have a swap partition, but it formatted all of its discs so the disc map (equivalent of the FAT) was in the middle of the disc, and allocated files from the middle out to the edges. This minimised the seek time from the files to the disc map which would be updated during every operation.
---druck
It didn't take that long to get to 1 MB. The 68K desktops (Mac, Amiga, etc.) of the second half of the '80s mostly shipped with at least 1 MB. It wasn't just the 68K boxes, either. While the Apple IIGS shipped with 256K at its introduction in 1986, it didn't take long for most to conclude it really needed at least 1 MB if you wished to use it as more than just a faster IIe.
(I could mention the Lisa, introduced in 1983 with 1 MB, but its $10k pricetag kept it out of reach of most. It was only two or three years later that the Macintosh Plus shipped with the same 1 MB for thousands less.)
For spinning rust, data transfer rates are usually higher at the beginning of the disk than at the end.
Sure but seek times matter more than data rate on a busy system.
They have sales figures to back them up - unfortunately.
Because it makes them lots of money?
No one in this world, so far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. -- H.L. Mencken
I still recall reading in a trade rag in the early '70s how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. And now I walk around with a thumb drive in my pocket that cost me $1 per gigabyte. It truly is staggering.
Not on a disk with constant sectors per track, it ain't...
I think only early floppy disks on non standard formats featured more bits per track on the outside...
Well that is all down to the exact nature of the data transfer. And what caching strategies are involved.
Most drive software caches the directory and inode tracks and will employ a sequential access across the disk to read and write, shuffling sector orders. as it were, to maximise throughput
Then data transfer becomes the limiting factor
But great brands with itrterly vile products do not succeed.
Hmm. These day's people are beginning to wise up...
Nor
Oh yes they have
Theresa May.
An expensive one then, they're running about 35-40c per gigabyte now in sizes up 512GB for thumb drives and a bit less for 1Tb drives from reputable suppliers.
Agreed, but for even quite a small disk capacity (I'm thinking of the old the 14", 20 surface, 3600rpm removable disks as used by mainframes and minicomputers until the early 1980s), when the relatively sluggish head movement speed made the difference in read speed between outer and inner tracks irrelevant.
These disks held around 60 Mchars/Mbytes and typically had 135mS random access times, or around 7.5 accesses a second. They were pretty much the norm on smaller manually operated mainframes and minis. Sequential read wasn't a lot faster: IIRC there was no interleave and a disk revolution was 16.6 mS at 3600 RPM, so you got around 60 reads a second: a whole 8 times faster than random access. In this era the disk controller was often several metres away from its drives and AFAIK, although it knew which cylinder[*] the heads were on it had no way to know which sector was under the heads.
These numbers I gave are for an ICL 1903 running UDAS, which was typically used in unitasking mode, with programs either run manually by an operator or sequentially a stack of job cards by the George 1 single streaming OS.
However, the 1903 could run George 3 if it had at least 32K of 24 bit words of RAM, and G3 was a full multitasking OS and had an improved disk accessing system which tracked disk head position and direction of movement and maintained two sorted queues of access requests: one was for accesses ahead of the heads and the other was for accesses behind the heads. It worked by servicing requests from the 'ahead' queue until that was empty and then switching direction. Even this simple strategy roughly doubled the disk access rate. The difference was obvious if you stood by the drives, listened and watched: compared with the heads thrashing in and out when accessing a random or indexed dataset under UDAS, the volley of clicks you heard as the heads floated gently in and out across the disk under George 3 was obviously doing more work in less time. I don't recall disks being much faster than that until controllers with built-in track buffering became commonly integrated into 5", 3.5" and 2.5" disks. [*] back in the day we talked about 'cylinders' rather than 'tracks' because, depending on capacity and manufacturer, a 14" removable disk had anywhere from 1 to 40 recording surfaces and could hold anywhere from 5 MB to 1 GB.
...and even cheaper if you're not a stickler for brand names. The 128GB stick I keep on my keychain was under 18¢/GB, and according to the seller, I bought it a year ago yesterday.
By comparison, my first MB (as an expansion card for an Apple IIe) was closer to $200-$300 when I bought it maybe 31-32 years ago.
Try running some disk-benchmarking software on an old hard drive. You'll see faster transfer rates at the start than at the end.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.