Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:45:11 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swap-related problems Message-ID: <37179347.D9D0FFEA@newsguy.com> References: <000001be8833$f9dd1d80$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schwartz wrote: > > There might be a demand for, for example, separate swap for critical and > non-critical processes. Or there may be a wish to reserve a certain amount > of swap just for critical processes, or to require overcommittment to exceed > a certain amount before 'critical' processes have their allocations fail. > > This is a tuning question. It's easily possible to err in either direction. > > The point is, however, that a well-behaved process can't behave well > without adequate feedback. And a fully-overcommitting kernel generally can't > provide that feedback. A never-overcommitting kernel can, but unfortunately, > that simply requires too much swap. Surely a reasonable compromise can be > struck. Sure. We call it limiting a process/user datasize. This solution is not more complicated than any other solution short of full pre-allocation, even if you do not believe so. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Well, Windows works, using a loose definition of 'works'..." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37179347.D9D0FFEA>