From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Apr  3 10:45:39 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA13677 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 10:45:39 -0700
Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA13669 for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 10:45:36 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA02762; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 11:49:07 -0600
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 11:49:07 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199504031749.LAA02762@trout.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
       "Re: any interest?" (Apr  3, 11:22am)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert), davidg@Root.COM
Subject: Re: any interest?
Cc: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Remember that with an overcommit architecture, failure to acquire
> needed swap means some process dies, and it's not necessarily
> the process that caused you to run out; it's pretty much any
> process (that's actually doing something) at random.

Not usually.  Almost always the process that gets wiped out is the
process which is growing constantly or one that was just started.  Only
in rare cases is it a long running system process you don't want wiped
out.

Before you go off and start arguing about it, this statement is made
from *experience*, so I can say with some assurance that I believe it to
be true no matter what you try to say otherwise.  Experience never lies.


Nate