[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Gerhard Mack wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>> It is part of the issue. The system would never go OOM, users would go
>> OOR (Out-Of-Resources). Out of resources is a manageable entity, that
>> can be adjusted from the results of performance analysis. OOM is a
>> catastrophic failure of the system. If the system doesn't provide a
>> way to control it, direct which user is at fault, and as directed by
>> management policy, then that system is considered buggy and not ready
>> for production use.
>> >Besides, the "random abort that may crash the system" is not the
>> >alternative. It is a choice of WHICH process gets the OOM error first
>> >- the "true culprit" (the memory hog), or any old process which
>> >happens to want memory?
>> Right now there is no way to determine which proces should get terminated.
>Why not set resource limmits? It's just like any other resource .. if I
>allow users unlimmited access to it I can fully expect to have someone
>crash the system.

I do - they just are not enforced. Each time a process forks it gets the
same limits that the parent has. The sum of all processes then becomes >
than the system.

Jesse I Pollard, II
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean