Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet From: John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:49:53 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 18 Message-ID: <Ja4p+zR.dysonj@delphi.com> References: <BcxpGux.dysonj@delphi.com> <MYCROFT.94Feb20102534@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <CLL9J6.FCF@endicor.com> <2ke3ss$l0d@u.cc.utah.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com X-To: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >Personally, I think you should be required to rebuild a kernel with >"option FAST_AND_LOOSE" if you want overcommit enabled. We have not met, so this is meant in the best of humor.... hows about "option TIGHT_AND_STINGY" if you want overcommit disabled :-)). Terry, I know that that is an issue that you are interested in, and you won't hear me shouting you down about it... I have read some of your messages about it and have found them interesting. The market that you are talking about is different that what a lot of people running some versions of *BSD are used to. The "fix" that I applied to FreeBSD was meant as a temporary measure to overcome a complaint that I kept hearing. We might be able to come up with a compromise like the one the you have submitted (allow the kernel to have either behaviour.) John dyson@implode.root.com