On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:09:35 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Paul Jakma wrote:
>>On 18 Mar 2000, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
>>
>> Overcommitting memory is the moral equivalent of writing bad checks and
>> praying there will be money to cover them before they are cashed. It's
>> completely irresponsible-- and when it fails, it really bites down hard.
>>
>>bzzzttt... bad analogy. :)
>>
>>overcommit is more like writing out many cheques where you know from
>>experience that typically only a small percentage are ever cashed.
>>
>>would you keep $1,000,000 of cash in reserve when you know that most
>>likely you could cover your debts with only $100?
>
>You do if it means that you will die if someone calls your bluff.
That doesn't apply here. You carry what you expect to need, plus some
spare; then, if you really have problems, you go and get a refund on
something non-critical. Killing one user process is not a
life-or-death situation - and it's not worth preventing the user
process ever starting, just to avoid the slight risk of it dying
later.
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 - 21:00:27 EST