> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:16:07 -0700 > Mike Smith <m...@smith.net.au> wrote: > > > Matt's point, which he's not making by virtue of talking too much, is > > that you can't make a "no overcommit" system behave like an "overcommit" > > system, and most people are used to the sort of things that the latter > > makes practical. > > That's just silly. If people want a no-overcommit system, they have it, > and if they don't, they have that, too.
You're too tied up in what you think you're trying to say that you're missing what I'm telling you. Of course you can turn overcommit off and on (more or less) with a switch. But a system that doesn't overcommit doesn't behave like a system that does; the two are quite different animals in many respects. You can make the "overcommit or not overcommit" option a switch, but the consumers of the system (may) need to change their behaviour as well. -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
