On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: > The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have > mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less > than 2G makes no sense.
Seems a lot of people are in the process of the 1.4 - 1.7 "leap of faith". Lots of things will start raising their heads - this being one. On my testbed I (deliberately) have all the dodgy traps in place, and memlimit zero. Hence I know about the Java_64 issue. For those taking the plunge this is probably a good time to heed Marks advice. However, ... it does exemplify the concerns I have expressed in the past. If the architects of (z/OS) Java_64 were unable to conceive of a means of making their product 64 bit capable without actually requiring storage above the bar, how competent can we expect the users to be. I don't know how to write a "fork bomb" in Java, but I'll bet it ain't hard. A sensible memlimit would be sensible. Shane ... (cheers Ramiro) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
