--- Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@netbsd.org> wrote: > Gary Thorpe wrote:
> > Its funny how people can rail about how a 0.5 sec delay on fork()
> when
> > a process limit is reached is "punishing" processes unfairly but
> have
> > no problem with killing them at random when memory is
> overcommited...so
> > much for reliability: you can lock up/crash/reboot *BSD or Linux
> 
> You cannot lockup/crash/reboot box like this, not NetBSD. The memory
> eaters are killed and system recovers.

Wrong. The next process which causes a page fault is killed. Try it. I
have "crashed" (the kernel may be unaffected but either init dies or
enough gettys die and are not respawned to make life unpleasant) both
FreeBSD and NetBSD using a simple program which does this.

> 
> > systems with a "malloc big memory, fork a bunch of times, then
> write to
> > memory" 10-30 line program. Why not worry about these fork "bombs"?
> > They seem like they are much more destructive.
> 
> Jaromir 
> -- 
> Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>           
> http://www.NetBSD.org/
> -=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric   
> -=-
> -=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you
> -=-
> -=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''    
-=- 

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca