lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Overcomittable memory
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.245 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site