Den 15-Mar-00 11:49:45 skrev James Sutherland fĝlgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, David Whysong wrote:
>> The only possibilities are to (a) enforce hard memory limits with no
>> overcommit, thereby wasting large amounts of swap space that will never
>> get used while not really solving the problem,
> As well as *destroying* performance (you'd effectively eliminate COW
> capability on fork - if your 500Mb simulation wants to fork a 100k mailer
> process to send you an update, the kernel has to allocate and copy 500Mb
> of RAM/swap first, then discard it all again.)
Not at all. COW is a performance optimisation which does not depend on
overcommitment of memory in any way. Why would you want to turn it off?
Regards,
/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻTŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk |
| Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC |
| Copywight 1996 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved. |
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST