network profile
| bio | website | remix.net |
|---|---|---|
| location | Santa Cruz, CA | |
| age | 37 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 4 months |
| seen | May 7 at 20:57 | |
| stats | profile views | 11 |
Turn-ons: Audio DSP, Music Synthesis, Embedded & micro computing, Security, Hacking, OSX, ARM assembly, Python
Turn-offs: eggplants, RAID-5 failures, spiders
|
Jan 27 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Oct 27 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
|
Mar 4 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Feb 28 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Feb 28 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? +1 for solaris truthiness |
|
Feb 28 |
comment |
Best way to swap filenames Something you should be aware of and fear - any program that has an open file handle to either one of those files will retain the open file handle after the rename because it's pointing to the same inode that it had when it originally opened the file. Until all programs that have the files open close them, this will be the case and cause data corruption if you expect that renaming them 'breaks' any existing writer handles. |
|
Feb 27 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? Useful to know - and will probably be a future research item to look at - I'd still be concerned about an application filling up my ram by proxy of tmpfs/ramfs in /tmp. That gives me the heebie jeebies! |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? Formatting |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? added 140 characters in body |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? added 140 characters in body |
|
Feb 27 |
awarded | Critic |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? Adding new answer response and links |
|
Feb 27 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? Also interesting: solarisinternals.com/si/reading/tmpfs.pdf - The amount of free space available to tmpfs depends on the amount of unallocated swap space in the system. The size of a tmpfs file system grows to accommodate the files written to it, but there are some inherent tradeoffs for heavy users of tmpfs. Tmpfs shares resources with the data and stack segments of executing programs. The execution of very large programs can be affected if tmpfs file systems are close to their maximum allowable size. Tmpfs is free to allocate all but 4MB of the system’s swap space. |
|
Feb 27 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? Are you sure that the point about Solaris is still true? blogs.oracle.com/jimlaurent/entry/solaris_faq_myths_and_facts states: Virtual memory today consists of the sum total of physical RAM and swap space on disk. Solaris DOES NOT require any swap space to be configured at all. If you choose this option, once RAM is full, you will not be able to start new processes. I think I see what your point is - if you wanted to mmap something larger than physical ram without the swap you couldn't? (Regardless that mmap is a lazy initializer). |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? added 786 characters in body |
|
Feb 27 |
suggested | suggested edit on Is swap an anachronism? |
|
Feb 27 |
revised |
Is swap an anachronism? added 549 characters in body |
|
Feb 27 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? That's pretty dangerous - if I need ramfs, I specify in fstab (or options) to set the size explicitly. It's just as likely that a program can go ape-crap insane with memory allocation as it is that it will start creating files in /tmp. Swap would be a bad place for ramfs files to show up (especially if you're relying on ramfs for the speed) |
|
Feb 27 |
comment |
Is swap an anachronism? This is a great point, but not a reflection of modern fork() - On Linux and FreeBSD (and, ostensibly OSX?) fork() is implemented through the use of copy-on-write pages. Copy-on-write (or COW) is a technique to delay or altogether prevent copying of the data. Rather than duplicate the process address space, the parent and the child can share a single copy. The data, however, is marked in such a way that if it is written to, a duplicate is made and each process receives a unique copy. Citations: forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=26355 and Linux manpage for fork() |
|
Feb 27 |
awarded | Student |
