Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:44:10 +0600 From: "Vadim Goncharov" <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: "Peter Jeremy" <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "advocacy@freebsd.org" <advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sbrk(2), OOM-killer and malloc() overcommit Message-ID: <opt4gojwrp17d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net> In-Reply-To: <20080105011027.GA21334@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <opt4euzyj44fjv08@nuclight.avtf.net> <20080104192820.GM947@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <opt4e9q3n14fjv08@nuclight.avtf.net> <20080105011027.GA21334@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
05.01.08 @ 07:10 Peter Jeremy wrote: >> So why we are losing users due to this "feature", > > Other than your previous post, I don't recall seeing this claim before. > Can you provide references to people stating that they are abandoning > FreeBSD because it doesn't support swap reservation? I've had a quick > look at can't find anything. Definitely, no-one considers it enough of > a problem to have raised a PR. Those people usually do not read or write any maillists, PRs, etc. - they simply take another OS, which they heard of support from commercial vendors, and which CAN do what they want, in this case - enable space reservation for at least some processes. I don't remember all of that people, but at least one lives in my town, and it is him program (with his name/address in comments) which I gave as illustration of problem in my first letter of this thread. And this man now says everyone that FreeBSD is good for education/small systems, but unsuitable for serious data-mining tasks... >> Can I find somewhere summary of that discussions in archives? > > Since you're making the claim, how about _you_ produce the evidence. I don't have too many time to search through all bikeshedding on a non-native language. But sometime ago this topic was discussed in russian NNTP BSD group, which shown in actuality of problem for some people - as a result, I was told that Kostik Belousov made a patch partially solving problem. So - why do not have tunable, which can pleasure both camps? Every time when people want XXX and others want the opposite - make it an option to not loose any of them... > In general, swap over-commit is a good idea because it enables you to > get by with far less resources than would otherwise be necessary - I've > disabled swap reservation on some systems at work to allieviate problems > that it was causing and I haven't seen any subsequent issues due to > overcommit being in use. There were case in our town when on heavy loaded web-server apache processes were dying on memory pressure - aforementioned man said that was due to overcommit and OOM killer working. I don't know about details, but surely it could lead to switching to Linux from FreeBSD... So I think, if that users are mistaking, we need an article explaininfg why memory overcommit is good and where are they wrong - we need people think good about FreeBSD, yeah? Possibly with tunable and description of it's bad effects, of course. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opt4gojwrp17d6mn>