From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 13 11:59:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B6315254; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA79981; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199907131859.LAA79981@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: Jason Thorpe , Noriyuki Soda , bright@rush.net, dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jon@oaktree.co.uk, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :But I have a valid point: can we do something better than posting a SIGKILL :to the largest process? : : Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ : green@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). -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message