So basically your saying memory usage does not matter as well once the JVM gets class sharing. Sounds like a superior solution given its faster.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 26, 11:15 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But does Android hardware and the os selectively track this (well > obviously > > it does) and have the ability to turn off individual memory banks ? Given > > memory usage is most likely fragment and scattered its prolly almost > always > > impossible to achieve such a thing unless compacts memory usage by native > > and vm apps. > > AFAIK it's deeply rooted in Android's design to keep processes idle in > memory, precisely because those DRAM cell costs just as much having > running whether there's unused junk or actual data in - in essence the > reason why Android does not mandate "Quit" buttons and even has its > own low-memory killer op top of the existing one in the Linux kernel. > I personally like this application model, though it can arguably be > confusing to people given the sheer questions around the topic of > application killers. However by profiling it becomes fairly obvious > that it's not powering the DRAM cells that's the biggest drain, it's > the screen and the 3G radio. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- mP -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
