From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 14 10:13:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail1.its.rpi.edu (mail1.its.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F7F14BB8; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail1.its.rpi.edu (8.8.8/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA08162; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:11:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <378CAAD9.AAD7268E@newsguy.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:11:33 -0400 To: "Brian F. Feldman" , "Daniel C. Sobral" From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)) Cc: Matthew Dillon , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 12:00 PM -0400 7/14/99, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > So why don't we do something else: when we're down to a certain > amount of backing store, start collecting statistics. When we're > out, we check the statistics and find what process has been > allocating most of it. We kill that process. Not that I'm really commenting on the above idea (although it does sound fine to me), this reminds me about an earlier thread. Is there any interest in us (BSD's) having a SIGDANGER signal like some other OS's do? That way, key processes (like sshd) could at least make it less likely that THEY are the process which is killed. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message