On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 01:13:12PM +0200, Jukka Marin wrote:
> I know there isn't a simple a perfect solution to this, but I would rather
> have a Netscape process killed by the system than have the whole server die
> or lock up.  I guess this isn't much of a problem on a single-user machine
> with 256 MB of RAM and 4 GB of swap.. but it seems to be a problem on a
> smallish single-user system already, not to mention public shell systems.

The problem is when the shortage happens, you simply don't know who the "right"
culprit to kill is.

Netscape might get N-20 pages of swap, then, say, some small cron job might
need 25. It might be possible to implement to kill the last process needing
swap, but this wouldn't be necessarily right.

	-is