Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:45:11 +0900
From:      "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
To:        David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc:        chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: swap-related problems
Message-ID:  <37179347.D9D0FFEA@newsguy.com>
References:  <000001be8833$f9dd1d80$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
David Schwartz wrote:
> 
>         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.

Sure. We call it limiting a process/user datasize. This solution is
not more complicated than any other solution short of full
pre-allocation, even if you do not believe so.

--
Daniel C. Sobral			(8-DCS)
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org

	"Well, Windows works, using a loose definition of 'works'..."


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?37179347.D9D0FFEA>