From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d375e920709022305i40f8dab8wc27ae56be8e441fe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon,  3 Sep 2007 08:05:15 +0200
From: Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
In-Reply-To: <20070903053514.GB24296@bio.cse.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <01b719eaabe004a9073ccb4b3425e1d0@plan9.bell-labs.com>
	<20070903053514.GB24296@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b4f03810-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Except that swap, is, as far as I have been able to figure out, broken.

uriel

On 3 Sep 2007 01:35:14 -0400, Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:38:44PM -0400, geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> > would have to commit just for stacks.  With 2,000 processes, that
> > would rise to 32GB just for stacks.
>
> With 4GB RAM, wouldn't you allocate at least that much swap
> no matter what?