From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <fa7a41cd4b48d7e150ebd5799f9c0240@quanstro.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:08:22 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Swap considered harmful (Sorry)
In-Reply-To: <44B66FCA.3040308@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7e5ec182-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i typically run with 128MB real memory and 750MB of swap *used*
(out of 4G).  the oom killer hasn't been up on murder charges on my
machine yet.

- erik

On Thu Jul 13 11:12:07 CDT 2006, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> >
> > Linux apparently takes the Atlas approach and thrashes on demand.
> >
>
> until it starts killing random processes. Usually the wrong one. But,
> hey, heuristics, right?
>
> I think I prefer 'no swap and panic' to 'kill random processes'. I can't
> differentiate between OOM killer and uncorrectable ECC errors.
>
> Of course, the kill on no memory guck is now appearing in other places:
> I can't build the myrinet tools on my machine any more, as this symbol
> is not found:
> /lib/libc.so.6: undefined reference to `_dl_out_of_memory@GLIBC_PRIVATE'
>
> oh yea. I'm loving those versioned symbols more than ever.
>
> ron