Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!umnd-cs!umn-cs!umdcs From: umdcs@umn-cs.UUCP (Jeff Wabik) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Memory Fragmentation Question Message-ID: <2074@umn-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 22:07:09 EDT Article-I.D.: umn-cs.2074 Posted: Sun Aug 23 22:07:09 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Aug-87 04:08:48 EDT References: <556489503.138.te07.linesville.ibm032@andrew.cmu.edu> <7154@g.ms.uky.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Lines: 31 Summary: Wha? In article <7154@g.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > In article <556489503.138.te07.linesville.ibm032@andrew.cmu.edu> te07#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Tom Epperly) writes: > >Am I correct in thinking that the Amiga's memory management causes > >memory to be gradually fragmented into a bunch of little chunks? If > >this is so, has anyone written a program to coalesce these small chunks > >into bigger chunks? > Would that be necessary? Disk accesses take longer when a disk is > fragmented, but memory accesses wouldn't. I really can't think of > any reason why one would need to do this. You can't? How about the ability to allocate a hunk of consecutive memory large enough to run another task? Having 100k of free memory doesn't mean that you can run a 100k task, since there might be 51 other tasks running, each with 2K of "free" between them in physical memory. The Amiga, unfortunately(?) is not a virtual machine. Wasn't this something we learned in "Computer Science 1001"? As long as we're giving wish lists -- does there exist an equivalent to UNIX's "kill" for the Amiga? A light skimming of the RKM's doesn't yeild an easy solution to this problem aching to be answered. -Jeff ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> In no way officially representing myself. "Live Long and Program." -Spock, Star Trek IX, "The search for an efficient algorithm" ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>