From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <448F2F9F.4060201@asgaard.homelinux.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:35:27 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Nils_O=2E_Sel=E5sdal=22?= <noselasd@asgaard.homelinux.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] quantity vs. quality
References: <8ae9ed145e1976dbe61a49a643a4e682@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <8ae9ed145e1976dbe61a49a643a4e682@9netics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a0a5930-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> excellent points; i believe this.  there's no sense in masking errors
> with pseudo recovery.  good test coverage should expose programmer
> misunderstanding.
> 
> if the system can't afford memory allocation errors, then
> preallocating (static or dynamic) and capping a maximum that the
> system should ever need will help simulate exhaustion in testing and
> make the memory usage and response times bounded.  watchdog processes
> and memory checksums are possible additional measures.

Memory shortage can often be temporary. Sleeping malloc has saved me
a few times.