sbrk(2), OOM-killer and malloc() overcommit

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at
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.

Peter Jeremy
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list