Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> said:
[...]
> This was the only case that vfork was to be used. The "interesting" cases
> are not relevent - they don't use vfork. I think the equivalent to vfork
> should be available for those cases where fork is followed by exec. It would
> make computing maximum swap sizes much easier. The simple: # of concurrent
> users * # of processes per user * amount of memory per process + amount
> guaranteed for system; is one. If the resource limits are available then
> the user may run one very large process or a group of smaller processes,
> and the system never runs out of memory. If system + all concurrent users
> use up everything, then your system needs to shutdown.
That would mean grotesque overdimensioning of the system, users normally
don't come even near the limits they might use, they don't do so at the
same time either (most of them aren't even logged in now around here ;-)
[OOM is exceptional]
> It is exceptional on single user systems. Not so exceptional on servers.
Huh? I've seen servers go OOM some say 10 times in my 15 odd years around
them. And then I increased swap or RAM. A crashed server could cost you
your hide...
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- 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