I'm not even going to attempt to address all of your points.
What I will say though is that I agree with them. Conversely, I'll say
that overcommitting memory has it's advantages, and that it should be the
default setting. ON THE OTHER HAND, I don't see a good reason to not allow
the sys admin to say "Linux: You must not allocate memory that you do not
have!"
That way, the folks who use Linux to keep people alive (either directly,
or to keep themselves employed, whatever :) can decide whether they want
to invest in the added physical memory/swap space to let a Linux server
run in a no overcommit environment.
The problem is.. who wants to implement it? :)
/* ----------
Michael Bacarella( mbac@nyct.net ) | (212) 293-2620
Administration / Development / Support | http://nyct.net/
[ N e w Y o r k C o n n e c t . N E T ] | info@nyct.net
Bringing New York The Internet Service It Deserves!
--------- */
-
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 - 21:00:28 EST