*BSD News Article 27955


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!apollo.hp.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!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: Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:53:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <RA0Jn4G.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <BcxpGux.dysonj@delphi.com> <2ke3ss$l0d@u.cc.utah.edu> <Ja4p+zR.dysonj@delphi.com> <2kfcur$dd1@germany.eu.net> <2kgdcd$mls@usenet.pa.dec.com> <2kkqib$h2h@Germany.EU.net> <CLutBp.4K9@flatlin.ka.sub.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1c.delphi.com
X-To: Christoph Badura <bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org>

Christoph Badura <bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org> writes:
 
>Getting it right means, not overcommiting VM and not killing random
>processes.  The cited versions simply fail the system call that
>requests more VM when no more is available.
 
FreeBSD V1.2 (future, not present release) will be closer than the
current release.  The problem with the current *fix* is that I temporarily
solved a problem of the MACH VM causing the system to hang.  Keep on
discussing it!!!  I need good input.  I think that we are eventually going
to support either behaviour.  On my machine, it would be a *GREAT* loss
to support no overcommit, but I can understand that in many cases we need
to pre-allocate VM resources.  I need MORE input -- keep on talking
about it (and other things!!!)
 
John
dyson@implode.root.com