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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:38:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
