From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20070903012332.20256.qmail@g.galapagos.bx.psu.edu>
Date: Sun,  2 Sep 2007 21:23:32 -0400
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
In-reply-to: <20070902212734.DF2D31E8C26@holo.morphisms.net>
References: <20070902212734.DF2D31E8C26@holo.morphisms.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:23:32 -0400
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b46422a8-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Russ:
| you could argue for some kind of accounting that would
| ensure pages were available, but this could only be
| terribly pessimistic, especially in the case of stacks
| and fork.

Still, that's the way unix worked.  You can deal with the pessimism by
allocating lots of backing store, whereas with overcommit (at least on
linux) you just have to learn to live with processes dying randomly.

But you knew all that. :)