Stefan Fuhrmann <[email protected]> writes: > <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> Perhaps we could start up a separate hook script process before >> allocating the large FSFS cache and then delegate the fork/exec to that >> smaller process? >> > > I wonder whether there is a way to pass a different > cache setting to the sub-process.
I don't think this would work. It's the fork that is failing, the child process never exists so it cannot use a smaller memory footprint. Having hooks run in a separate process is complicated. The process would need to be multi-threaded, or multi-process, to avoid hooks running in serial. stdin/out/err would need to be handled somehow. Pipes perhaps? By passing file descriptors across a Unix domain socket? For now I think we just have to recommend that the system has sufficient swap for the fork to work. Once the child execs the hook the memory footprint of the process goes down. So as far as I can tell on my Linux system nothing gets written to swap, it just has to exist when fork is called. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
