🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4itbl2$320@news.erie.net>, pce@moose.erie.net (Paul
Christenson) wrote:

> Nevin ":-]" Liber (nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <4in381$ri9@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
> : Glue) wrote:

> : > You mean in 1991, the Mac OS could dynamically allocate memory to apps
> : > without the user "specifying" how much memory each apps needs by
> : > him/herself?

> : On the flip side, Unix users have to set process limits so that things
> : like Netscape don't bring the whole machine to a snail's pace.

> I have *NEVER* had to set a "process limit" on ANY *nix system that I've
> used, from my (primarily) CLI Linux system here at home, to the SGIs at
> school.  I've run Netscape concurrently with several shells and programs
> such as Matlab.

What version of Netscape?  Go to a JavaScript page and let it sit there
for a while.  People have reported not only noticeable slowdowns of their
machines, but even crashes of the supposedly uncrashable Unix (it has
memory protection; how could an app possibly crash it?  How could the
Titanic sink?).

> The only time I would need to set priorities is when I'm
> running a timing-sensitive process such as RealAudio.

The claim was these types of problems went away with PMT.  Guess not.

> Many of the MEs at school regularly run Netscape while waiting for a long
> ANSYS job to run.  Most programs (like Netscape) spend most of their time 
> waiting for input, be it user input or data from the net.

Are you absolutely sure that someone hasn't imposed a per-process limit on
the amount of VM a process is allowed to allocate?  There is no difference
between an admin setting it and you setting it, in my eyes.  A limit is a
limit.
-- 
        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799