On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Ted Faber wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >I said:
> >:So, Matt, I understand that you think that the folks who are want to
> >:turn off overcommit are looking to hang themselves, but how much does
> >:it cost to sell them the rope?
> >
> > I'm guessing that a simple implementation would be about an hour's
> > worth of work on the kernel: [...]
> >
> > But you would never be able to run normal system programs reliably
> > without also going through the entire utility source base and doing a
> > whole lot of rewriting. Standard programs such as
> > <everything_under_the_sun> are not going to be happy when the limit is
> > hit and this will slowly cause system daemons to disappear from the
> > system and for programs to start dying in odd ways when you do anything
> > that brings the system close to an 'overcommitted' state.
>
> If it's a small hunk of work, maybe one of the folks who wants the
> overcommit turned off can do the work and get it committed or
> post patches. It would allow the arguments to be decided by
> experiment. It seems we're well past the point of convincing anyone
> verbally.
You know, it occurred to me that with all the time wasted typing up messages
in this thread someone (e.g. Matt) could have instead coded up a simple
non-overcommit model, given it to the nay-sayers and said "Run this and see
what I mean about making your system unusable" :-)
At least that way people might finally shut up about it all..
Kris
-----
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes."
-- Unknown
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
