"A month of sundays ago ptb wrote:"
> Horst von Brand wrote:
> > has 128Mb RAM + 128Mb swap. With your scheme it won't even be able to
>
> I'll just comment that this is a fine mix, horst. I have 128+256 on
> my main system - but I normally never go more than 30M into swap, and
> that's for "resting" processes.
And I'll further comment ...
> Given that your system would be slow as molasses if it really was using
> 100MB of swap for processes that it rotated through page-in frequently,
> I suggest you allocate say 64MB for secure processes. That way you can
> start 8 secure processes on your system, and the rest has 64MB of
> normally accounted swap, plus the 128MB ram.
.. that if you really wanted a secure process, you'd take care to
program it so that it didn't use 8MB of stack, and you'd take care to
start it with a stack limit of something more reasonable, like maybe
100K. That way you only need to stake a claim to 100K of backing swap
for that secure process, and no big deal all round.
Actually, I can think of one more process that I'd like to have as
secure apart from init and cron .. the software watchdog. I kill
apache regularly on servers anyway, just to keep it under control.
Peter
-
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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:26 EST