On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:49:24AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> The issue isn't with the size of the disk storage required, but
> with the mechanism. Why dedicate 256M to a suspend partition, and
> invent a new process saving mechanism, instead of making your
> existing swap partition 256M larger and using the existing swap
> pager?
Because our swapper doesn't work that way. Generally speaking, swappers
don't work that way anymore. Systems that suspend to disk are a corner
case for FreeBSD.
> Processes do still wind up in "sleep" state, completely paged
> out, don't they?
Observationaly, no. Unless I actually manage to run my system low on
RAM, none of my swap is used even with ~5MB Eterm processes sitting
unused for days. I suppose if I let memory get tight, they might get
ditched in favor of disk cache, but I haven't seen that happen. Someone
with a better grasp of the VM could give a more preciese answer.
-- Brooks
--
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
