On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:09:35 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Paul Jakma wrote:
>>>On 18 Mar 2000, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
>>>
>>> Overcommitting memory is the moral equivalent of writing bad checks and
>>> praying there will be money to cover them before they are cashed. It's
>>> completely irresponsible-- and when it fails, it really bites down hard.
>>>
>>>bzzzttt... bad analogy. :)
>>>
>>>overcommit is more like writing out many cheques where you know from
>>>experience that typically only a small percentage are ever cashed.
>>>
>>>would you keep $1,000,000 of cash in reserve when you know that most
>>>likely you could cover your debts with only $100?
>>
>>You do if it means that you will die if someone calls your bluff.
>
>That doesn't apply here. You carry what you expect to need, plus some
>spare; then, if you really have problems, you go and get a refund on
>something non-critical. Killing one user process is not a
>life-or-death situation - and it's not worth preventing the user
>process ever starting, just to avoid the slight risk of it dying
>later.
It all depends on the application. I have seen embeded systems that
could cause a loss of life on failure. I have worked on some that
almost cost the job of the manager who sent it out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST