ten thousand small processes

[D. J. Bernstein]

Bakul Shah writes:
> Instead of complaining about wasting 78 megabytes and arguing
> about why various proposed solutions fall short and why your
> way is the best, why don't you come up with a patch that
> saves space for small programs?

Funny. Seems to me that I keep making concrete suggestions---including a
detailed proposal for giving more space to malloc()---and the answer is
consistently ``We really don't care about per-process overhead.'' What's
the benefit of a patch for people who don't even see the problem?

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago