Greg Stark wrote: > I suspect this was less of an issue in the days before copy on write because > vfork was more widely used/implemented. I'm not sure linux even implements > vfork other than just as a wrapper around fork. Even BSD ditched it a while > back though I think I saw that NetBSD reimplemented it since then. > > > But then there's the problem of people running database servers on > > misconfigured machines. They should know better than not setting enough > > swap space, IMHO anyway. > > Well, I've seen DBAs say "Since I don't want the database swapping anyways, > I'll make really sure it doesn't swap by just not giving it any swap space -- > that's why we bought so much RAM in the first place". It's not obvious that > you need swap to back memory the machine doesn't even report as being in > use...
I see no reason RAM can't be used as backing store for possible copy-on-write use. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
