On 2004-05-09 17:03:13 +0200, Wolfram Gloger wrote: > I know, but see /etc/initscript. Together with the number of > processes (also ulimited), it effectively is a limit for the system. > Not the one you like, obviously, but nevertheless a functional one.
Definitely not realistic. I don't want to set any limit. The machine is used in particular to do some computations that need a lot of memory. > > Wrong remark. Solaris behaves correctly, for instance (i.e. if there > > is no memory left, malloc() returns 0, without needing to set limits > > on processes). > > "Correctly"? First, I doubt that Solaris has no overcommitment -- try > a test with fork() (it should then fail unless there is enough > physical memory left for a second copy of _all_ writeable pages of the > current process). fork() fails when there isn't enough memory, but this is a feature, and this can be controlled by the programmer. I used Solaris for several years and this was quite rare. Also, the processes that take much memory would probably quit early enough in a nice way. > Second, I for one would consider the absence of overcommitment as a > bad misfeature. Good luck with the kernel bug report. The 2.6 kernel seems to have better memory handling (but I couldn't try yet). Concerning the 2.4 kernel, the problem seems to be the documentation. -- Vincent Lef�vre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% validated (X)HTML - Acorn / RISC OS / ARM, free software, YP17, Championnat International des Jeux Math�matiques et Logiques, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
