Date: 17 Jul 1999 19:36:51 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Assem Salama <salama@twcny.rr.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Devloper Message-ID: <xzpemi7npos.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: "Daniel C. Sobral"'s message of "Sun, 18 Jul 1999 02:21:51 %2B0900" References: <37907E69.90037620@twcny.rr.com> <xzpg12nnri3.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3790BBAF.3556105C@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> writes: > * a sysctl to make the system non-overcommit So I see common sense lost in the end. > * SIGDANGER in low-memory situations Do we support more than 32 signals? ISTR AIX already does this. What signal numbers / names does AIX use for this? > * Dividing processes into those that ought to be killed first and > those that ought to be killed last in low-memory situations How does AIX solve that problem? > * Per-user swap space limit Is that a realistic goal? What do we do about shared text, count it once for every user that uses it? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpemi7npos.fsf>