On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :But I have a valid point: can we do something better than posting a SIGKILL
> :to the largest process?
> :
> : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
> : gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
>
> We could have the ability to mark processes as being more or less
> preferable as kill candidates. I'm not sure I really care anymore,
> though... there is so much disk space available now that it is fairly
> difficult to run the system out of swap space. I don't think I've
> run any of my personal systems out of swap space for at least a year
> now! Usually the biggest process is the one responsible (note: MFS
> processes do not count, and they are immune from being killed).
We need some kind of hysteresis... a process took up all my swap left,
got killed, then my X server got killed too. I'd like something that says
"I don't want process X killed unless it has run away with over Y of memory."
But I'd also like to see FreeBSD not kill two processes to prevent a deadlock.
>
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <dil...@backplane.com>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
gr...@freebsd.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
