Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:02:22 10/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 12:03:33, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 09:31:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It really isn't a "weird" reason. These objects are persistent. Do you want >>all your virtual memory hogged by a process that runs amok? > >Shrug, this can also happen without shared mem. > >Windows has no problems like this. > >-- >GCP Sure it does. Try to malloc something big on a windows machine that is installed as a server. It has a limit for this same reason. Otherwise a single application can run wild and blow out virtual memory and cause every other process to crash when they can't malloc() anything else. I once tried to run Bruce's tablebase generator on a machine running windows NT-server. Wouldn't run. Ran fine on a windows NT-client box however. Microsoft had a limit per-process that makes good sense. As far as non-shared memory, you are right. However, when a program terminates, non-shared memory goes away. As does memory mapped in with mmap(). Only the system-V shared memory objects remain beyond a process's life. Hence the limit that is trivial to expand...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.