On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Ted Faber wrote: > Matthew Dillon wrote: > >I said: > >:So, Matt, I understand that you think that the folks who are want to > >:turn off overcommit are looking to hang themselves, but how much does > >:it cost to sell them the rope? > > > > I'm guessing that a simple implementation would be about an hour's > > worth of work on the kernel: [...] > > > > But you would never be able to run normal system programs reliably > > without also going through the entire utility source base and doing a > > whole lot of rewriting. Standard programs such as > > <everything_under_the_sun> are not going to be happy when the limit is > > hit and this will slowly cause system daemons to disappear from the > > system and for programs to start dying in odd ways when you do anything > > that brings the system close to an 'overcommitted' state. > > If it's a small hunk of work, maybe one of the folks who wants the > overcommit turned off can do the work and get it committed or > post patches. It would allow the arguments to be decided by > experiment. It seems we're well past the point of convincing anyone > verbally.
You know, it occurred to me that with all the time wasted typing up messages in this thread someone (e.g. Matt) could have instead coded up a simple non-overcommit model, given it to the nay-sayers and said "Run this and see what I mean about making your system unusable" :-) At least that way people might finally shut up about it all.. Kris ----- "Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes, because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes." -- Unknown To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message