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 majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
