From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jul 17 10:38: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D433C14E81 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:38:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id TAA21313; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:36:51 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Assem Salama , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Devloper References: <37907E69.90037620@twcny.rr.com> <3790BBAF.3556105C@newsguy.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 17 Jul 1999 19:36:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: "Daniel C. Sobral"'s message of "Sun, 18 Jul 1999 02:21:51 +0900" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: > * a sysctl to make the system non-overcommit So I see common sense lost in the end. > * SIGDANGER in low-memory situations Do we support more than 32 signals? ISTR AIX already does this. What signal numbers / names does AIX use for this? > * Dividing processes into those that ought to be killed first and > those that ought to be killed last in low-memory situations How does AIX solve that problem? > * Per-user swap space limit Is that a realistic goal? What do we do about shared text, count it once for every user that uses it? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message