From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 13 14:41:57 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 09BA015253 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:41:52 -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 OAA24339; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199907132141.OAA24339@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Archie Cobbs , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) Reply-To: Jason Thorpe From: Jason Thorpe Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:41:14 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Dillon wrote: > :- I might be creating a very limited embedded system with just a few > : small processes that are all written to *handle* out of memory situations. > > Really? Then setting resource limits from within each program is not > a problem now is it? Then it will get a nice malloc failure instead > of getting killed by the kernel. See chris's point... Maybe you have one process that needs 10MB and a few others that need 300K - 1MB. Resource limits are not useful in this scenario. ...and, who said anything about using malloc()? :-) -- Jason R. Thorpe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message