From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C5E6D72.289692B8@strakt.com> From: Boyd Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Virtual memory & paging References: <20020204103944.36F5419A27@mail.cse.psu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:16:02 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4b3a58e0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 geoff@collyer.net wrote: > Given that degree of sharing, the low cost of RAM, and the increase in > OS complexity, slowness and insecurity in the implementations of > dynamic libraries that I've seen, I don't see a need for dynamic > libraries. Neither do I. Didn't the tests show that the implementation of them on unix actually made things slower and more memory got used, not less? Virtual memory usually refers to the management of the memory when you allow more 'memory' to be used than you have physical memory. It always implies a private virtual address space (unlike those Dragonball based Palm things). Hence you could have a private virtual address space but no virtual memory. This would limit the size of the collection of processes on the machine to not consume more that the amount of physical memory you had. Once you have a private virtual address space [essential, except in certain special cases] you can then manage the physical memory in any way you like.