🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCJr1E.7AB@wombat.hanse.de> root@wombat.hanse.de (Bernd "Bernie" Meyer) writes:


>ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) writes:

>>I know one guy who waited a few hours for his system to settle down before 
>>rebooting; there's no way to know how long it might have taken to become 
>>responsive again had he not rebooted.  And he wasn't running lots of 
>>processes--just some memory hogs.  X + Netscape was OK on his 8 meg machine, 
>>but, as he discovered, X + Netscape + something else was not a good thing to 
>>do.

>Maybe that guy just failed to provide some swap space? This sounds like his
>machine wasn't actually running out of memory, but just got really desperate
>in trying to free memory, thus kicking out nearly all the executable pages.
>A system with swap would have swapped a serious amount of data first, so not
>everytime an executable gets a timeslice, the code is gone and has to be
>reloaded. Believe me, with a decent sized swap space and a recent kernel,
>out of memory situations are handled very gracefully. Running without swap
>is simply stupid, because you typically have a lot of data that is not in
>the working set. Adding swap will reclaim that space for other uses.

I _know_ he had swap and a recent kernel.  But maybe he 
didn't have enough swap and didn't realize it quickly enough...

-Ericb@psu.edu