Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matthew Dillon <email@example.com>
Date: 07/13/1999 14:14:52
:On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
: Matthew Dillon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
: > We could have the ability to mark processes as being more or less
: > preferable as kill candidates. I'm not sure I really care anymore,
: > though... there is so much disk space available now that it is fairly
: > difficult to run the system out of swap space. I don't think I've
: > run any of my personal systems out of swap space for at least a year
: > now! Usually the biggest process is the one responsible (note: MFS
: > processes do not count, and they are immune from being killed).
:...I suppose it depends on what market you're going for, too. Some
:systems (not even necessarily OLD systems, but maybe modern, embedded
:ones, too) don't always have the option of having "so much disk space
:Seems like you want your operating system to behave the `correct' way
:depending on the environment in which it's being used.
: -- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>
If you don't have the disk necessary for a standard overcommit model to
work, you definitely do not have the disk necessary for a non-overcommit
model to work.
If you were to try to implement overcommit protection on a system
with insufficient disk space, it probably wouldn't have enough reservable
space to run basic system daemons, much less any actual servers.
Read the part again where I mentioned the swap requirements for a
non-overcommit model to operate at the same level as the current model.