Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:07:22 -0700
From:      "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To:        "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
Cc:        <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: swap-related problems
Message-ID:  <000001be8833$f9dd1d80$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
In-Reply-To: <371779F1.7D5C28C2@newsguy.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> >         So long before critical processes can starve
> non-critical processes, the
> > reverse will occur.
>
> Ah, I see... you have a kind of point. You will find out, though,
> that no critical process will run, because the non-critical ones
> will long have overcommitted.

	There might be a demand for, for example, separate swap for critical and
non-critical processes. Or there may be a wish to reserve a certain amount
of swap just for critical processes, or to require overcommittment to exceed
a certain amount before 'critical' processes have their allocations fail.

	This is a tuning question. It's easily possible to err in either direction.

	The point is, however, that a well-behaved process can't behave well
without adequate feedback. And a fully-overcommitting kernel generally can't
provide that feedback. A never-overcommitting kernel can, but unfortunately,
that simply requires too much swap. Surely a reasonable compromise can be
struck.

	DS



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001be8833$f9dd1d80$021d85d1>