lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
Date
On 19 Mar 2000 18:00:42 -0800, you wrote:

>In article <linux.kernel.45hadsgku4f59qae3ouohgbk7k4p6lc5os@4ax.com>,
>James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Now we'll take a WWW server, with 100 processes forked, all sharing
>>most of the image. You just blew 2Gb or so of my swap space, to
>>achieve - nothing.
>
> Okay, I'm getting really curious here: what application do you
> have that requires that you run 100 copies of a web server each
> with 20mb of unique writable data?

I don't. The 20Mb is almost all shared across the processes - but it
IS mostly writable. With overcommit, it's fine. Without it, I'd need
to throw an extra Gb or so of swap into the machine, just to overcome
the non-overcommit bug.

Disabling overcommit does NOT prevent ANY problems. It just changes
the nature of a problem, making it much more frequent and a bit more
predictable. A bit like compensating for an occasionally leaking seal
on a submarine by removing the seal entirely.

> david parsons \bi/ I simply avoid the Linux overcommit bug by dropping
> \/ half a gigabyte of ram into my workstations.
You don't need to add RAM to overcome overcommit - you'd need to throw
a Gb or so of swap at them to compensate for NOT having it.


James.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.245 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site