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