Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:11:33 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)) Message-ID: <v04011701b3b2731f0384@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907141159400.9606-100000@janus.syracuse.net> References: <378CAAD9.AAD7268E@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:00 PM -0400 7/14/99, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > So why don't we do something else: when we're down to a certain > amount of backing store, start collecting statistics. When we're > out, we check the statistics and find what process has been > allocating most of it. We kill that process. Not that I'm really commenting on the above idea (although it does sound fine to me), this reminds me about an earlier thread. Is there any interest in us (BSD's) having a SIGDANGER signal like some other OS's do? That way, key processes (like sshd) could at least make it less likely that THEY are the process which is killed. --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 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?v04011701b3b2731f0384>