Re: total memory of children processes

[Rory Toma]

Sorry to have been out of touch... Working on a tough project.

I can't promise but I am going to try and get the *bsd's and re-test
next week. I seem to recall that the numbers did not look out of line
the first time I looked at these, but...

I'm going to have to downgrade my FreeBSD 5 machine to 4.8 (vmware
license for my 4.8 machine ran out...) Perhaps I should actually *buy* a
license.

On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 09:37, Christian Hopp wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> 
> > Christian Hopp <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > > As I am one of the fortunate Solaris users I would also prefer
> > > 2)... but when it comes to clean code I would do the hard way, meaning 1).
> >
> > Let's go for choice 2 and it's a good idea to put in a warning in the
> > parser, if the statement is used on Linux. You fix? Then we still are
> > up for a release Monday/Tuesday next week.
> 
> I gonna fix tomorrow.
> 
> > > Nope... it depends on your depends. (-: I have written a code
> > > preserving the order for status, by adding a next_conf and a
> > > statuslist_conf.  This requires just <services>*<pointersize> memory.
> > > And it works.
> >
> > Yes, simply saving the servicelist in an optional variable++ *before*
> > check_depend is executed will let you keep the registred order. But
> > I'm not sure why this is important to do?
> 
> Nope... I dont copy... I simply save the order and the startpoint!
> 
> Yes... it is important... it is hard to read the status output if you have
> 80 services being not in the right order!
> 
> CHopp
-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 9       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part