Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: Overcomittable memory | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:39:31 -0600 |
| |
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote: >On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:45:35 -0600, you wrote: > >>On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:10:23AM +0000, James Sutherland wrote: >>> Yes, you COULD have COW without overcommitting - but you still lose one of >>> the major benefits of COW, namely huge savings on VM usage. If I fork() >>> 100 Apache processes of 20Mb each, I need perhaps 30Mb of VM total. >>> WITHOUT overcommitted COW, I end up needing 2Gb of swap space - 1.98Gb of >>> which I will never use! This is certainly not an efficient use of swap >>> space, IMO... >> >>This is why god gave us segments. Can share the code; just have room for >>the data. >> >>Actually, I suppose it would be possible to know how much is code not >>likely to change (runtime loadable modules), and not have to commit for >>that. > >Or just commit based on the memory which is really being used by the >process, which is nice and simple, and hasn't caused any problems I >know of yet. > >It works - why change it?
Because it doesn't work. Systems crash. Systems do reboot. Reliability is just not there for production server capability. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@cats-chateau.net
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |