Subject: Re: Bad response...
To: Steven M. Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>
From: Steven J. Dovich <dovich@cadence.com>
List: current-users
Date: 08/30/2004 10:47:05
"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com> wrote:
>
> But I suspect that a bigger problem is that once there's a demand for
> memory to satisfy an interactive process, whether a new command or some
> process that has just awakened, it looks like the new process has to
> fight with the file-writing processes for the newly-freed memory. I
> suspect that the percentage of RAM allocated to file writes needs to
> follow a strategy similar to TCP's congestion control -- when there are
> competing requests, it needs to *seriously* cut back the percentage
> allocatable to such needs -- say, an additive increase/multiplicative
> decrease scheme, just like TCP uses.
That sounds like a familiar echo... I made that suggestion about
two years ago, in:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2002/06/21/0002.html
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2002/06/21/0015.html
As I recall, the reception was cool as the approach is more involved
than many are prepared to explore. I am still convinced that there
is a significant potential here for anyone with the time to conduct
the research.
/sjd