From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Sep 1 22:18:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA11802 for questions-outgoing; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (cisco-ts8-line11.uoregon.edu [128.223.150.75]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA11797; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA00296; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:18:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White Reply-To: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu To: dyson@FreeBSD.org cc: Nadav Eiron , scott@statsci.com, Eric.Berenguier@sycomore.fr, questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1.0 CRASH! In-Reply-To: <199608311453.JAA00482@dyson.iquest.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, John S. Dyson wrote: > Both of the above are technically wrong, but to be conservative in the > worst case, #2 above is the most correct if you want to make sure that > the system never kills any processes or ever hangs. This is of course, > assuming that no processes ever share memory. But, #1 above is > definitely wrong and will not guarantee that the system will not hang > due to out of VM conditions!!! At least when I'm wrong, I get set back right by the proper people. :-) Thanks for setting us all straight. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major