From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 13 14:11: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from lestat.nas.nasa.gov (lestat.nas.nasa.gov [129.99.50.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C272152E6; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:10:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thorpej@lestat.nas.nasa.gov) Received: from lestat (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lestat.nas.nasa.gov (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA23817; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199907132110.OAA23817@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , 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) Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:10:13 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Dillon wrote: > 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). ...I suppose it depends on what market you're going for, too. Some systems (not even necessarily OLD systems, but maybe modern, embedded ones, too) don't always have the option of having "so much disk space available". Seems like you want your operating system to behave the `correct' way depending on the environment in which it's being used. -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message