From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 14 21:54:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854F4154EB for ; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:54:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id NAA29036; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:54:04 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <378D66C9.9AC6C4E4@newsguy.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:42:49 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Richardson Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Swap overcommit (was Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2)) References: <199907141958.PAA02088@pzero.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Michael Richardson wrote: > > No, I don't agree. > > This is a biggest argument against solving the overcommit situation with > SIGKILL. I have no problem with overcommit as a concept, I have a problem > with being unable to keep my possibly big processes (X, rpc.nisd, > etc. depending on cicumstances) from being victims. It is no more difficult to protect big processes than it is to create user limits. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Would you like to go out with me?" "I'd love to." "Oh, well, n... err... would you?... ahh... huh... what do I do next?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message