Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Berkeley paging
Message-ID: <7891@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 14 May 88 18:01:57 GMT
References: <53@lazlo.UUCP> <142700033@occrsh.ATT.COM> <651@pyuxe.UUCP> <7878@brl-smoke.ARPA> <11484@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <11484@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>Indeed, it can be argued that the clock scheme is more `Unix-like' than
>the working set scheme; ...

That's true.  The way I like to view the difference is that under the
"working set" scheme, a process competes for memory pages only against
itself, whereas under the alternative "global" scheme, all processes
compete against each other for memory pages.  The former is "fairer"
and therefore more suitable for real-time oriented systems, while the
latter is arguably more globally efficient and certainly feels more
like a traditional UNIX way of doing business.