On 20 Mar 2000 00:50:43 -0800, you wrote:
>In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.4.10.10003171319000.3718-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>,
>James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>>> Erhmm, sorry that I have to say this Paul, but this
>>> sounds like non-overcommit is about shifting the blame
>>> and not about fixing the problem...
>
>>In fact, it makes the problem worse.
>
> If the problem is an intruder on your system who is attempting a
> deliberate denial of service attack, maybe. If the problem is a
> program allocating more memory than there is in the system and
> making a different program die because of the overcommit,
> non-overcommit is the best solution to this feature.
The first process does NOT make others die because of overcommit. They
die because the system is out of memory, and they need more memory to
survive.
James.
-
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 - 21:00:29 EST