[MUD-Dev] Re: MUD-Dev request rejected

[Greg Miller]

Dan Root wrote:
> [Ilya:]
> >Are there obvious (or less obvious) restrictions or catches or
> >gotchas which should direct one away from serious exploration?
>
> One significant flaw in MOO is it's use of an entirely memory based
> system for persistence.  A large MOO can easily be 80 to 200 Megs in
> memory.  TrekMOO and Lambda both claim those sorts of figures.  How much of
> this bloat could be avoided is debatable, but the point remains that this
> can be a serious drawback for using MOO in a environment where growth is a
> significant meta-goal of the game.  See the list archives for various
> debates on memory versus disk-based games.  JCL made a particularly
> informative and persuasive post during one such discussion.

I recently ran across an article linked from news.com discussing a study
on memory vs. disk performance. They found that databases designed to be
kept entirely in RAM were at least an order of magnitude faster than
disk-based databases that had sufficient RAM available to keep the
entire database in cache. Of course, the catch here is that MUDs
typically use custom databases rather than a general-purpose DBMS and
may not be subject to similar degrees of difference. Anyone else see
that article and still have the address?
--
http://www.classic-games.com/
Conspiracy theorists mistakenly assume others think before acting.
*** Please limit .sigs to four lines and avoid HTML mail or posts. ***



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev