The intent isn't to try to exceed or even come close to hardware-based
virtual memory. The intent is to isolate the effects of memory
overuse of one part of the system, to keep this from affecting other
parts.
However, I'd wager that you're right that it would involve a
noteworthy performance pen
On 2010-03-11, at 07:48, Lear Cale wrote:
> I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
> script memory, it would have a dramatically lower impact on the server
> process as a whole, and no impact on the other server processes
> sharing the same machine.
Decades of experi
I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
script memory, it would have a dramatically lower impact on the server
process as a whole, and no impact on the other server processes
sharing the same machine.
> It doesn't matter whether the swapping is done by the OS or by th
On 2010-03-11, at 06:21, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> Maybe we can handle scripts like Linux handles memory. Use up an
> allotted space based on requirements and if it exceeds that (among
> other scripts using the same shared environment) it can begin to
> swap in it's own little cluster.
It doe
Truth be told, we're all humans. Give a monkey enough rope to hang himself
and he probably will. A dynamic system makes sense because the people who
only need a small slice can live happily and the people who need more
resources have the flexibility they need...
Of course, those are ideal condit
