You realize that it had to be turned on explicitly on IRIX, right? But
don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...
On the contrary, with Irix 4 and earlier it was the default, but it caused so many problems that
SGI switched the default to OFF in IRIX 5. But because it had been available
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 02:12:01PM -0800, Craig A. James wrote:
And speaking of SGI, this very issue was among the things that sank the
company. As the low-end graphics cards ate into their visualization
market, they tried to become an Oracle Server platform. Their servers were
*fast*. But t
Am 18.11.2006 um 19:44 schrieb Guido Neitzer:
It might be, that you hit an upper limit in Mac OS X:
[galadriel: memtext ] cug $ ./test
test(291) malloc: *** vm_allocate(size=2363490304) failed (error
code=3)
test(291) malloc: *** error: can't allocate region
test(291) malloc: *** set a break
Michael Stone wrote:
At one point someone complained about the ability to configure, e.g.,
IRIX to allow memory overcommit. I worked on some large IRIX
installations where full memory accounting would have required on the
order of 100s of gigabytes of swap, due to large shared memory
allocatio
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 12:42:45PM -0800, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I am interested in learning the science
behind configuring
memory usage.
There isn't one. You need experience, and an awareness of your
particular requirements. If it were easy, it w
> (Maybe other people are just
> better at configuring their memory usage?)
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I am interested in learning the science
behind configuring
memory usage. A lot of the docs that I have found on this subject speak in
terms of generalities
and rules of thumb. A
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 05:28:46PM -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
On linux you can use the sysctl utility to muck with vm.overcommit_memory;
You can disable the "feature."
Be aware that there's are "reasons" the "feature" exists before you
"cast" "aspersions" and "quote marks" all over the place,
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here's something I found googling for "memory overcommitment"+linux
>> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-04/0512.html
>
> That might have been right when it was written (note the reference to a
> 2.2 Linux kernel
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here's something I found googling for "memory overcommitment"+linux
>> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2000-04/0512.html
>
> That might have been right when it was written (note the reference to a
> 2.2 Linux kernel
Am 19.11.2006 um 04:13 schrieb Brian Wipf:
It certainly is unfortunate if Guido's right and this is an upper
limit for OS X. The performance benefit of having high
shared_buffers on our mostly read database is remarkable.
I hate to say that, but if you want best performance out of
Postgre
10 matches
Mail list logo
