[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: 2.4.x swap sizing

Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> Hi,
>         I believe using "vim" for such work may not be the
> optimal solution.

I was just trying to duplicate someone elses problem.
The system should not chrash when editing a large file.
Even if there is a better way to do the edits.

>         I am not very familiar with vim running from the command line,
> however I find it strange that it makes a ".swp" file.
> An .swp file means that it keeps data in case you do undo?
> vim has, by default, 1000 undo levels. Try to change this to 0 and retry.

I believe it's for recovery. like the .saves and #file# that emacs
has. If something kills the editor, you can usually recover
the unsaved edits with these files.

>         Furthermore, as it was mentioned before, using perl for such
> work is a good investment. I believe that someone on the list would
> not mind to convert your "replace" script in Perl so that you could
> get going.

See above.
I WOULD use perl if it was something I needed to do.
The scripting of vim  was to allow easy timing of the job.

>         Additionally, it was mentioned in this list that the kernel
> should kill a process if it takes away completely a specific resource.
> I believe that the linux-kernel consensus on that was that this follows
> a bad philosophy. The resource should be exhausted, the kernel should
> try to help as much as it can and it may crash the system. This would
> be an indication that something bad was with the program. Otherwise
> you would have a non-deterministic behaviour where your apps would get
> killed if they were carried away.

NO user apps should be able to bring the system down.
things run as UID 0 (root) yes, but not a user app.
That's one of the reasons I left M$ products and moved
to UNIX and Linux.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]