Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:11:01 +0000
From:      Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
To:        Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Cc:        chat@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Good BSD/Linux Article (somewhat off-topic)
Message-ID:  <6.0.1.1.1.20040118000417.02bbee70@imap.sfu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040117185613.22159B-100000@fledge.watson.o rg>
References:  <6.0.1.1.1.20040116175159.03f4dd48@imap.sfu.ca> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040117185613.22159B-100000@fledge.watson.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 23:59 17/01/2004, Robert Watson wrote:
>I suspect that the /. effect has gotten easier to carry
>over time in part because a lot of the clients are higher bandwidth than
>they were before -- if you have moderate size files being tranfered, lots
>of long-lived slow connections take up a lot more memory than short-lived
>ones.

   Actually, this raises an interesting point -- if
1. There is a significant amount of network traffic,
2. There is memory pressure, and
3. There are several runnable processes,
it might be a good idea to give scheduling priority to the oldest
process, in the hope that it will complete and free its memory.

Colin Percival




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.1.1.1.20040118000417.02bbee70>