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
        . 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...


To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to