Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:49:57 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) Message-ID: <199907132349.QAA13287@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:24:53 PDT." <199907132324.QAA81905@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>: >:Well, all I can say is: >: >: I'm sure glad you don't have any influence over the code >: base I run. >: >: -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> > > I'm sure the feeling is mutual. More to the point, I really seriously > doubt that any of the core developers would consider this idea either > because it's been rejected in the past and, so far, nobody has offered > anything that hasn't been heard before. You are welcome to ask them, > of course, but that is the feeling I get. There are much easier ways > to accomplish the level of control required. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a no-overcommit knob, but I think implementing it properly is more difficult than people think. There are things that do implied swap allocation (automatic stack allocation and fork() are two examples) that make this a difficult problem to solve. I wouldn't personally want to run a system with such a knob turned on, however, and I tend to agree with Matt that there are other better ways to solve the embedded system case. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com 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?199907132349.QAA13287>