[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
>>Jesse Pollard <> said:
>>> Without overcommit:
>>> You can support 100 simultaneous connections, with full saturation of
>>> each server, with no failures.
>>> Result: happy customers, happy management, maybe even a raise.
>>Management nagging about supporting more pages, worried by waste of several
>>Gb of disk that has never, ever been touched. System is sluggish, needs
>>constant tweaking of "resource allocation quotas" as applications crash,
>>even there are resources available. Seriously consider firing inept
>Disk space is cheap.

And completely orthogonal to overcommit. You put the same disk space on
the overcommitted machine and it will work fine.

>System is no more sluggish than currently, and is much more reliable.

Yes, because you added more memory.

The correct solution to OOM situations is not to turn off overcommit. The
correct solution is to put more memory in the machine.


David Whysong
Astrophysics graduate student University of California, Santa Barbara
My public PGP keys are on my web page -
DSS PGP Key 0x903F5BD6 : FE78 91FE 4508 106F 7C88 1706 B792 6995 903F 5BD6
D-H PGP key 0x5DAB0F91 : BC33 0F36 FCCD E72C 441F 663A 72ED 7FB7 5DAB 0F91

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    [W:0.062 / U:31.844 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site