Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:37:01 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rob Hagopian <> | Subject | Re: Memory Management - BSD vs Linux |
| |
On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Mike Shaver wrote:
> Thus spake Rob Hagopian: > > That's ridiculuous, I can do the exact same thing today (cat /dev/zero > > > /tmp/hahawatchthesystemdie ; malloc(1000000000000). > > Except that I can enforce a memory usage limit without creating a > /tmp-space limit, and (although less usefully, I think) vice versa. > > > However, you only create the argument for resource limits here. > > The argument for resource limits already exists, and is met with > quotas/ulimit. tmpfs forces me to tie my disk usage and memory usage > policies together, and I don't think the OS should do that.
Woha! "force"? The OS doesn't force you to do anything. If you _choose_ to use tmpfs, then yes, I see that quota/ulimit do have problems. Then again, I always have the problem that they aren't flexible enough to do what I want anyways. I still think that you make the argument for resource limits, wether or not they can be handled by quota/ulimit today- I guess not, so maybe tmpfs isn't a good thing for quota'd systems...
(disclaimer: I don't run quotas on my systems and neither does the CS Dept which has the Solaris boxes with tmpfs. My reasons are above...) -Rob H.
| |