Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:07:40 -0800 (PST) | From | Gerhard Mack <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? |
| |
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.
Gerhard
-- Gerhard Mack
gmack@innerfire.net
<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- 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/
| |