>> another reason for the low size was so that it was easier >> to keep multiple processes mapped at the same time, >> to reduce context switch latency. > > that makes sense. unfortunately, this means that any > process that uses significant memory on plan 9 needs > to be re-checked for 9vx. even 100mb is tiny.
it's easy to recompile. the current limit seems to work very well for people, as this is the first complaint in two years. there are still people running plan 9 on 64 MB or 128 MB machines. (and actually i thought the 9vx limit was 256 MB; maybe ron cranked it down.) russ
