On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 10:49:24AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> The issue isn't with the size of the disk storage required, but
> with the mechanism.  Why dedicate 256M to a suspend partition, and
> invent a new process saving mechanism, instead of making your
> existing swap partition 256M larger and using the existing swap
> pager?

Because our swapper doesn't work that way.  Generally speaking, swappers
don't work that way anymore.  Systems that suspend to disk are a corner
case for FreeBSD.

> Processes do still wind up in "sleep" state, completely paged
> out, don't they?

Observationaly, no.  Unless I actually manage to run my system low on
RAM, none of my swap is used even with ~5MB Eterm processes sitting
unused for days.  I suppose if I let memory get tight, they might get
ditched in favor of disk cache, but I haven't seen that happen.  Someone
with a better grasp of the VM could give a more preciese answer.

-- Brooks

Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to