| |||
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
On Oct 10, 2006, at 10:34 , Alison Cassidy wrote:
Fair point. However, I'm assuming the kernel memory management will deal accordingly in some sane manner. See; http:// unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?swapoff+2
Mac OS X is not Linux :-}
Indeed! :)
In any case, from that man page, I don't see how you can do both of "quiet all disk activity" and avoid the problem I mention above (which really isn't specific to your process; modern OSs have a lot of processes that can fire at any time to handle the exigencies of the moment; they need to be able to run, or the system crumbles).
You could, as mentioned earlier in this thread, avoid enabling the paging daemon. With sufficient memory, you could run a full system, but things may start failing in strange ways without the elasticity provided by a backing store. In case you haven't looked in depth at the Mac OS X VM system, it's all handled by the paging daemon. There is no path to disk (for this purpose) within the kernel.
Thanks again,
-- Allie _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/email@hidden
| References: | |
| >MacOS X equivalent of swapon/swapoff? (From: Alison Cassidy <email@hidden>) | |
| >Re: MacOS X equivalent of swapon/swapoff? (From: "Justin C. Walker" <email@hidden>) | |
| >Re: MacOS X equivalent of swapon/swapoff? (From: Alison Cassidy <email@hidden>) | |
| >Re: MacOS X equivalent of swapon/swapoff? (From: "Justin C. Walker" <email@hidden>) |
| Home | Archives | FAQ | Terms/Conditions | Contact | RSS | Lists | About |
Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.
1-800-MY-APPLE
Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.