From owner-freebsd-current  Sat May 11 01:56:06 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA27000
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 1996 01:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA26987
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 11 May 1996 01:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.5/8.6.9) id BAA19486; Sat, 11 May 1996 01:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 01:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605110855.BAA19486@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
CC: nisha@cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: <199605102030.WAA25232@uriah.heep.sax.de> (message from J Wunsch on Fri, 10 May 1996 22:30:50 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: Max data segment size
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * As David Greenman wrote:
 * 
 * >    There isn't any problem with increasing these limits as long as
 * > you realize that it will allow users to more easily spam the system
 * > by consuming all of the swapspace. They could probably do this,
 * > anyway, however.

Yeah...that limit's for only one process, right?

 * Hmm, not even more wasted memory that could stomp one someone's toes
 * when running in 2 MB :) RAM only?  In this case, i'd vote for bumping
 * the default hard limits.

I wasn't proposing to change the default, 128MB is mighty big enough
for most people.  I just wanted assurance that it's not dangerous to
do what I did.

Well, maybe we can add a commented-out entry to LINT, because if we're 
going to ship ccd and the fixed disklabel.h and all to let people
build their own wcarchive on one filesystem, we might as well tell
them how they can fsck that beast.... :)

Satoshi