Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2))
To: Matthew Dillon <email@example.com>
From: Garance A Drosihn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/15/1999 11:22:26
At 6:29 PM -0700 7/14/99, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> If 1G isn't enough, spend another $30 and throw 2G of swap
> online. Or perhaps dedicate an entire $150 disk and throw
> 6+ GB of swap online.
> The equivalent setup using a non-overcommit model would require
> considerably more swap to have the same reliability.
Please note that we're talking at cross-purposes here, mainly
because I didn't realize this same general topic was being
beaten to death in the 'replacement for grep' thread (which I
have not been following).
Speaking for just me myself and I, I have no problems with the
current overcommit model. All I'd like to do is have a way to
indicate which processes should not get booted first, if the
system does indeed run out of swap and needs to boot some
processes. However, other people seem much more worked up
about this topic than I am, and thus what I (personally) meant
as "just casual questions" seem to be taken as "demands that
something be done, RIGHT NOW".
I now realize that some people are arguing that malloc should
return an error if the system runs out of space, but that's not
what I am thinking about.
So, I think I'll bow out of this discussion for now, and maybe
try to discuss my "casual questions" sometime in a different
Garance Alistair Drosehn = email@example.com
Senior Systems Programmer or firstname.lastname@example.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute