1998-12-01 - Re: Securing data in memory (was “Locking physical memory (fwd)

Header Data

From: “Frank O’Dwyer” <fod@brd.ie>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: e768a6adb62e95164491bebe383be4144a9cc3ad4f651ae22dc72cd2197836cf
Message ID: <36642CC3.6D70A65B@brd.ie>
Reply To: <19981130180002.17576.qmail@nym.alias.net>
UTC Datetime: 1998-12-01 20:17:40 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:17:40 +0800

Raw message

From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod@brd.ie>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 04:17:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Securing data in memory (was "Locking physical memory (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <19981130180002.17576.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <36642CC3.6D70A65B@brd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> Most PCs today are not well balanced architecturally.  They should
> really have a couple hundred megabytes of memory.  Memory is cheap
> enough today that this can be added, but the motherboard configuration
> may limit the amount.  If you had this much memory, swapping to disk
> would be a smaller problem.

Unless you're running NT. I have a box with NT server and 256MB RAM, and
I'm pretty sure about 100MB of that has never seen any data. The disk
still rattles away, even though the machine is typically left switched
on. For example, if you run Word, log out, then run Word again, it still
seems to go for the disk. 

Cheers,
Frank O'Dwyer.





Thread