Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr
From: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Forwarded message (MINIX)
Message-ID: <101@lmi-angel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 11:22:13 EST
Article-I.D.: lmi-ange.101
Posted: Fri Jan  9 11:22:13 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Jan-87 22:40:24 EST
References: <2771@mit-hermes.AI.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Organization: LISP Machine, Inc (Cambridge Engineering HQ)
Lines: 17

In article <> jec@iuvax.indiana.EDU writes:
>	Okay, I give up.  How in the world do you do a fork() without
>some sort of MMU.

Running without an MMU is clearly a loser. I believe that you can
still have a fork(), however, it you don't mind running at a snail's
pace.

What you can do is take a snapshot of the process at fork time, and
send this copy off to swap space. In this manner you never end up
having more than one process on core at any time. All non-running
processes will be swapped out. No address translation is required
since no two processes will ever be co-resident.

Now, if only one could protect kernal address space from corruption...
-- 
Wolfgang Rupprecht	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr