Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:48:31 -0600 |
| |
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 Email: pollard@cats-chateau.net
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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |