Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:42:49 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)) Message-ID: <378D66C9.9AC6C4E4@newsguy.com> References: <199907141958.PAA02088@pzero.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Richardson wrote: > > No, I don't agree. > > This is a biggest argument against solving the overcommit situation with > SIGKILL. I have no problem with overcommit as a concept, I have a problem > with being unable to keep my possibly big processes (X, rpc.nisd, > etc. depending on cicumstances) from being victims. It is no more difficult to protect big processes than it is to create user limits. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Would you like to go out with me?" "I'd love to." "Oh, well, n... err... would you?... ahh... huh... what do I do next?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?378D66C9.9AC6C4E4>