On 19 Mar 2000 19:27:22 +0100, you wrote:
>Den 17-Mar-00 10:04:27 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":
>> Yes. There may be a few, specialist applications where you truly want/need
>> overcommit disabled (embedded apps, perhaps?) - but for the desktop/server
>> market, overcommit is almost essential.
> Lost of non-Linux systems work fine without it.
Yes, we've all seen how much better NT is.
> Do you actually have any
>numbers to back up your claims?
Do you have any justification whatsoever for your opposition to demand
allocation of memory?
> A programmer can waste quite a lot of time hunting for non-existant
>bugs to explain crashes caused by a kernel which can't keep count of its
>memory. Been there, done that.
If your app takes all the available memory, it should be blatantly
obvious that you have done something wrong. The only overcommit
related problem here is if your application allocates address space it
never uses, in which case it can run out of address space before it
runs out of memory. Even this should be fairly clear in a debugger,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:29 EST