Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:53:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: swap-related problems Message-ID: <199904141353.JAA25377@kot.ne.mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904140924070.18456-100000@picnic.mat.net> from Chuck Robey at "Apr 14, 1999 09:34:43 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey once stated: =He's not talking about an artificial limit, he's talking about another =user making off with all the memory. This sounds very bizarre, how can =you possibly ask the system to predict what other user's are going to =ask for, in advance? You can't possibly get absolute permissions on [...] =These are fundamental design problems (which you have been told already) =and the way that FreeBSD chooses to act is arguably a very good one. =There is nothing here that violates any fundamental rules, because we =are talking about OS wide allocation strategies. If you need =guarantees, then you have to buy more memory, more swap, and have less =hungry users. All I want is that a program gets NULL from malloc if there is no memory available. I find that to be a very fundamental thing about malloc. In response, me and others are told at different times: . there is no such thing as "no memory available" (!!!) . you can get that behaviour by limiting the user's maximum datasize . this wouldn't work without dumping the overcommit strategy, which would demand more memory and will slow things down . be a better sysadmin . get more memory and swap . this discussion is annoying and fruitless (!!!) I find this responses unacceptable, or only partially acceptable... -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904141353.JAA25377>