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$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <371779F1.7D5C28C2@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > So long before critical processes can starve > non-critical processes, the > > reverse will occur. > > Ah, I see... you have a kind of point. You will find out, though, > that no critical process will run, because the non-critical ones > will long have overcommitted. There might be a demand for, for example, separate swap for critical and non-critical processes. Or there may be a wish to reserve a certain amount of swap just for critical processes, or to require overcommittment to exceed a certain amount before 'critical' processes have their allocations fail. This is a tuning question. It's easily possible to err in either direction. The point is, however, that a well-behaved process can't behave well without adequate feedback. And a fully-overcommitting kernel generally can't provide that feedback. A never-overcommitting kernel can, but unfortunately, that simply requires too much swap. Surely a reasonable compromise can be struck. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001be8833$f9dd1d80$021d85d1>