Re: Linux doesn't seem to manage memory very well

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote:

James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

It may be unwise to assume there's such expertise. A number of years ago
I came up with what I thought was a sensible design for a paging system.
I later found that it corresponded very closely to the one used in
Windows and differed markedly from the paging system used in Linux. I
remember thinking that the latter was not a good design and since then
I've experienced problems with Linux when memory fills up which I tend
to assume are down to the design of its paging system - hence the,
admittedly provocative, title of this thread.

 
There is more than way to do it. Windows and Linux are both operating
systems, and still fundamentally different. For example, firing up a
new process is vastly more expensive in Windows than Linux's fork()
mechanism. There is no "better" or "worse" in that comparision.
 
I don't know enough about VMS, but didn't the guy who led the design
the process and memory management layer for Windows NT come from
Digital Equipment?

Yes, Dave Cutler, chief architect for VMS, plus much of the DEC VMS
team that remained at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler

The core innards of NT are supposedly *very* VMS like.