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

From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy_at_optushome.com.au>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:10:27 +1100
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.

Received on Sat Jan 05 2008 - 00:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC