Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Minneapolis Cluster Summit, July 29-30 | Date | Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:54:12 -0400 |
| |
On Monday 12 July 2004 14:21, Steven Dake wrote: > On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 21:23, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On Monday 12 July 2004 00:08, Steven Dake wrote: > > > On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 12:44, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > Oom conditions are another fact of life for poorly sized systems. > > > If a cluster is within an OOM condition, it should be removed > > > from the cluster (because it is in overload, under which unknown > > > and generally bad behaviors occur). > > > > You missed the point. The memory deadlock I pointed out occurs in > > _normal operation_. You have to find a way around it, or kernel > > cluster services win, plain and simple. > > The bottom line is that we just don't know if any such deadlock > occurs, under normal operations.
I thought I demonstrated that, should I restate? You need to point out the flaw in my argument (about the deadlock, not about philosophy). If/when you succeed, I will be pleased. Until you do succeed, there's a deadlock.
Regards,
Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |