Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:19:32 +0000 (UTC) From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "swap" partition leads to instability? Message-ID: <loom.20130529T131753-79@post.gmane.org> References: <1369558712.96152.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <loom.20130526T143506-872@post.gmane.org> <1369644392.92027.YahooMailNeo@web165003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <loom.20130527T115233-867@post.gmane.org> <loom.20130528T204022-196@post.gmane.org> <CAH3a3KU%2BZe2SRe0DQVGw=rV1XhCL1z4mZu2Mdv_c_NnAD9pyAw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Fred Morcos <fred.morcos <at> gmail.com> writes: > .. > The improvement effect can be > noticed on large inputs. These algorithms will most probably perform quite > badly on small inputs. I think your concern has been addressed in review of various algos where base case identification helped to avoid overhead cost in small problem sizes relative to cache. http://erikdemaine.org/papers/BRICS2002/paper.pdf In light of available but not implemented better VMM algos, perhaps *BSD and Linux could eliminate or reduce the need for: - swap space - swapping out RAM even if there is no lack of it - overcommitment of memory (a bluff asking to be punished by OOM killer) - OOM killer Besides, they allow sloppy/dangerous programming. jb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20130529T131753-79>