At 6:29 PM -0700 7/14/99, Matthew Dillon wrote: > If 1G isn't enough, spend another $30 and throw 2G of swap > online. Or perhaps dedicate an entire $150 disk and throw > 6+ GB of swap online. > > The equivalent setup using a non-overcommit model would require > considerably more swap to have the same reliability.
Please note that we're talking at cross-purposes here, mainly because I didn't realize this same general topic was being beaten to death in the 'replacement for grep' thread (which I have not been following). Speaking for just me myself and I, I have no problems with the current overcommit model. All I'd like to do is have a way to indicate which processes should not get booted first, if the system does indeed run out of swap and needs to boot some processes. However, other people seem much more worked up about this topic than I am, and thus what I (personally) meant as "just casual questions" seem to be taken as "demands that something be done, RIGHT NOW". I now realize that some people are arguing that malloc should return an error if the system runs out of space, but that's not what I am thinking about. So, I think I'll bow out of this discussion for now, and maybe try to discuss my "casual questions" sometime in a different context... --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = g...@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or dro...@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
