From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <76c6f43793c4760d9049f52caf9a2608@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  3 Sep 2007 13:32:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <557b673255bf469340fec39ebc5ec647@csplan9.rit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b577429c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Also, it's broken, broken, broken on Plan 9

but could you describe what antisocial behavior it exhibits and how one
could reproduce this behavior?  i have never used to-disk paging on plan 9,
so i don't know.

> and nobody wants to fix it.

this has been a good discussion so far.  let's not go off in a bad direction.

> The upside to this is that we can just say how we don't want it anyway,
> there's no conceivable reason anyone would want swap,  and operating
> systems with working swap suck ;)

not sure how to parse this.  is there a particular case where you need to-disk
paging?  i don't see the use of to-disk paging.  perhaps my vision is limited.

in the one case where i might find it useful  -- in embedded systems, there's
typically more ram than persistant storage, so paging to "disk" makes no sense.

- erik