sbrk(2), OOM-killer and malloc() overcommit
peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Fri Jan 4 17:10:31 PST 2008
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 02:26:53AM +0600, Vadim Goncharov 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.
> Can I find somewhere summary of that discussions in archives?
Since you're making the claim, how about _you_ produce the evidence.
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.
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080105/464de871/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current