[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: non-automated test failure report! :)
dholland-current%NetBSD.org@localhost (David Holland) writes:
>Not really, no. In most ordinary overload cases, it will grind to a
>halt swapping long before it actually OOMs.
I see OOMs a lot on Linux and hardly any of these follow
heavy swapping. Mostly it is a heavily loaded system and
something suddenly touching non-allocated memory
it never should have been granted.
>Like I said, it would perhaps be desirable to have a switch for
>pessmistic swap allocation. But there's no real reason to turn it on
Stability is a reason. But in Linux not even disabling
overcommittment and having swap larger than RAM helps to
eliminate the OOM killer.
>The "random" part is where you're going off the rails.
It is still "random" to some degree, used to be worse.
Michael van Elst
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Main Index |
Thread Index |