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.
mrc
--
Mike Castle Life is like a clock: You can work constantly
dalgoda@ix.netcom.com and be right all the time, or not work at all
www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/ and be right at least twice a day. -- mrc
We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan. -- Watchmen
-
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 - 21:00:24 EST