From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 24 19:50:56 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BBA37B401 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DB743F3F for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1P3oo0H027665; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:50:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20030225021234.GA1835@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030224.174742.21056478.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030225005912.GA1583@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030225021234.GA1835@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:50:49 -0500 To: Marcel Moolenaar From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Fw: Proposed new sysctl MIB nodes Cc: "M. Warner Losh" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-RPI-Spam-Score: -1.7 () IN_REP_TO,OUTLOOK_FW_MSG,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 6:12 PM -0800 2/24/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >On Mon, Feb 24, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > Jason first asked his question on the bsd-api mailing list (which >> hopefully has people from all the main BSD's on it). In a later >> message on that mailing list, he replied to a similar question: >> >> > How about simply having a total memory count in quads >> > instead? That way we won't run out when we pass 2^48 >> > or 49th bytes in 10 or 15 years. >> >> Ok, a u_quad (page count) it is. > >This isn't really a similar question. On 64-bit machines it's rather >odd to use a 32-bit entity to hold the amount of memory. The most >logical step is to make it a 64-bit entity, not to increase the >granularity. > >Also, why a sysctl to get the total amount of memory in the box. >Isn't getrlimit a much better approach to tune process behaviour? Well, I was just passing along the comment from the other mailing list. I'm not sure what's the best solution for the problem that Jason is hoping to solve, but I do like the idea that it would be good if all BSD's provide the same solution, so that people outside the BSD world can cover all the BSD's with a single change. Jason is asking on the bsd-api-discuss@wasabisystems.com mailing list. I assume people could get onto it by sending "subscribe bsd-api-discuss" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message