|
The heat spell broke overnight, with overcast and rainshowers continuing
into the morning. Smells and feels like autumn now. Weather is funny (climate
too for that matter), in that while we are somehow prone to see things on
a continuum (or alternatively just black and white), the real phenomena of
the world are more commonly oscillations around quasi-stable states of balance.
The important aspects of this are that the "balance" states are
almost, but not entirely stable, and that the actual state is not
at rest, but oscillates around the optimal point of stability.
For simple (mechanical) systems, lossy and without feedback, things are generally
predictable in a simple way, at least on the macro scale or as statistical
averages. (Although even then there are some surprising conclusions to be
drawn.) For more complicated systems with various kinds of feedback and energy
transport, predictability quickly goes south.
Comparatively small local changes can in such coupled systems have
disproportionally large effects elsewhere, or even globally. The "el
Niño"/"la Niña" transitions in equilibrium states in the South
Pacific that cause such drastic shifts in global weather patterns (probably
triggered by some "small" energy input in the right place at the right time)
is but one example.
Another little understood coupling is the salinity/temperature balance in
the water off the Norwegian northwestern coast. According to researchers
studying the matter, this acts as a "master switch" for the really immense
water (and heat) transporter belt we know as the Gulf Stream, but which is
really much larger than that one visible surface component. They suggest
that if the balance tips far enough, it shifts the local system to another
stability point -- like a thermostat it then "turns off" the larger system,
and the result is a deep ice age in northern Europe in a surprisingly short
time -- within a century, perhaps even mere decades. Paradoxically, the trigger
effect that may tip the balance to an ice age is global warming.
On a more human scale, my NT system is usually very stable, but if examined
closely one sees that e.g. resource usage oscillates around some value. Sometimes
a combination of factors will make this oscillation instable. While writing
the previous paragraphs, synchronicity and serendipity came together and
created an unusual situation somewhere in the bowels of the NT code. Suddenly,
memory usage just started climbing:inexorably until it hit the current maximum.
I ended up with a system that could only do one thing: repeatedly run the
"out of virtual memory" process that puts up the alert telling you to either
close processes or allocate larger swap resources.
Weird.
Between these recurring alerts I eventually got Task Manager to respond enough
so I could at least see the process list -- Given the lack of virtual memory,
context switching was iffy. The process list showed only 20 Mb of process
use (which usually corresponds to something like 80Mb total system use),
of which half was going to the currently open applications. Yet on the
performance tab, virtual memory usage was maxed out to 110% (OTOH, cpu usage
hovered around only 3%).
I closed an application, but the freed space was sucked up immediately. Closed
a few more windows. Same thing. Another application expired spontaneously.
Down to two instances of Explorer, the memory graph drops like a stone to
something like normal idle use.
Again weird. Whatever the problem was, it cleared up as mysteriously as it
appeared. A runaway process connected with one of the applications? NT deciding
to eat RAM for breakfast?
Bottom line. No data lost, no reboot, just a passing state of system chaos.
* Updating scripts and some pages of
the wiki. The
findpage form now works as it is supposed to. For convenience, I've also
included edit and search links at the top of each page. On and off during
the evening, I've been experimenting with some subtle but useful variations
on the basic script.
Notes:
1) He who stretches
longer than his blanket, stretches his feet into the straw. Alternate
(admonishing) version: One should not stretch the feet longer than
the bed-fell reaches.
|
See the
update-link (above) that points where I last added
some text, which should simplify your keeping up to speed. Of course, you
may still have to scroll back a bit and see if I've updated more than once
since you last visited, but that is easily done.
LeufNet
