On 2000-10-11 19:53:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On other machines I'd set RLIMIT_DATA and my OOM problems went away,
> but on linux this didn't work
RLIMIT_DATA appears to only be checked for aout format executables.
Looking at the 2.4.0-test10pre1 sources for fs/binfmt_aout.c and
On 2000-10-11 11:45:06 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
> This manpage shows me functions and structs.
What were you expecting from the system call section of the Linux
Programmer's Manual? Dancing girls?
(h...)
> I'm assuming you want these used by the offending program or the shell
> under
On 2000-10-11 12:48:54 -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> No way should a desktop user be responsible for micro-managing the
> resource usage of his applications.
That's right. The systems administrator should, and will set
appropriate limits for users on his/her system that apply from login.
This
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
> >
> > Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
> > exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
> > take up all
- Received message begins Here -
>
> On 2000-10-11 09:45:30 -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Until user memory resource quotas are included in the kernel, there will be
> > nothing else that can be done. Even with resource quotas, if the total of
> > active users exceeds the
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>
> Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
> keel over and die if the system goes OOM? I mean, seriously, if the
> administrator lets it get to that state then he/she/it deserves a dead
> system. It's akin to having
On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
>
> Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
> exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
> take up all your memory... guess its the admins fault.
Yep, for not setting appropriate
On 2000-10-11 09:45:30 -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Until user memory resource quotas are included in the kernel, there will be
> nothing else that can be done. Even with resource quotas, if the total of
> active users exceeds the resource then the same/equivalent situation occurs.
So
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> Heh.. now all we need is some smart-arse to make something similar to
> apply to the _entire_ VM subsystem, and both Rik and Andrea can be happy
> ;)
>
> Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
> keel over
Heh.. now all we need is some smart-arse to make something similar to
apply to the _entire_ VM subsystem, and both Rik and Andrea can be happy
;)
Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
keel over and die if the system goes OOM? I mean, seriously, if the
Heh.. now all we need is some smart-arse to make something similar to
apply to the _entire_ VM subsystem, and both Rik and Andrea can be happy
;)
Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
keel over and die if the system goes OOM? I mean, seriously, if the
Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
take up all your memory... guess its the admins fault. Oops... some
mod_perl script decided to freak out and an apache process decides to suck
all
- Received message begins Here -
Heh.. now all we need is some smart-arse to make something similar to
apply to the _entire_ VM subsystem, and both Rik and Andrea can be happy
;)
Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
keel over and die
On 2000-10-11 09:45:30 -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Until user memory resource quotas are included in the kernel, there will be
nothing else that can be done. Even with resource quotas, if the total of
active users exceeds the resource then the same/equivalent situation occurs.
So setrlimit()
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
take up all your memory... guess its the admins fault. Oops... some
mod_perl script decided to
On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
take up all your memory... guess its the admins fault.
Yep, for not setting appropriate
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
Seriously, am I missing something obvious or is it far simpler just to
keel over and die if the system goes OOM? I mean, seriously, if the
administrator lets it get to that state then he/she/it deserves a dead
system. It's akin to having your
- Received message begins Here -
On 2000-10-11 09:45:30 -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Until user memory resource quotas are included in the kernel, there will be
nothing else that can be done. Even with resource quotas, if the total of
active users exceeds the resource
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
Yep, for not setting appropriate resource limits.
man 2 setrlimit
Of course, if its a kernel bug that causes it I think you're SOL ;)
This manpage shows me functions and structs. I'm assuming you want these
used by the offending program or the
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Paul Jakma wrote:
that's why you have per process limits set. Eg, PAM makes this
exceedingly easy with pam_limit.so - edit /etc/security/limit.conf.
this prevents at least 90% of OOM situations (ie individual leaky
processes). eg netscape will then pop-up "can not
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
I wasn't aware PAM settings affected daemons started up during boottime
but I will check into it, thank you.
daemons generally don't need to be PAM aware (unless they deal with
authorising things). The script that launches it however (if started
by
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 01:58:49AM +1100, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 2000-10-11 10:33:39 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
Your making the deadly assumption that all applications behave themselves
exactly the same all the time. Oops... netscape decided to freak out and
take up all your
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 2000-10-11 09:45:30 -0500, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Until user memory resource quotas are included in the kernel, there will be
nothing else that can be done. Even with resource quotas, if the total of
active users exceeds the resource then the
On 2000-10-11 12:48:54 -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
No way should a desktop user be responsible for micro-managing the
resource usage of his applications.
That's right. The systems administrator should, and will set
appropriate limits for users on his/her system that apply from login.
This
On 2000-10-11 11:45:06 -0400, Bruce A. Locke wrote:
This manpage shows me functions and structs.
What were you expecting from the system call section of the Linux
Programmer's Manual? Dancing girls?
(h...)
I'm assuming you want these used by the offending program or the shell
under
I've had to support an app running as a back-end to a webserver that would
malloc() different amounts of memory depending on user input, up to
multiple gigabytes of memory which vastly exceeded the 512k the machine
had as main memory. The app was a program that would scan genetic
sequence
On 2000-10-11 19:53:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On other machines I'd set RLIMIT_DATA and my OOM problems went away,
but on linux this didn't work
RLIMIT_DATA appears to only be checked for aout format executables.
Looking at the 2.4.0-test10pre1 sources for fs/binfmt_aout.c and
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:58:46PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> > >
> > > > before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
> > >
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> > before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
> > did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
> >
> > So now you can stop arguing about the one and
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM killer,
> > implement it, provide it as module and get back to the important
> > stuff ;-)
>
> This is definately a cool toy for people who have doubts
> that my OOM killer
[OOM killer war]
Hi there,
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
You can even use modules, if you are careful (see khttpd on how
to do this without refcouting).
So now you can stop arguing about the one
[OOM killer war]
Hi there,
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
You can even use modules, if you are careful (see khttpd on how
to do this without refcouting).
So now you can stop arguing about the one
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM killer,
implement it, provide it as module and get back to the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM killer,
implement it, provide it as module and get back to the important
stuff ;-)
This is definately a cool toy for people who have doubts
that my OOM killer will do the
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
So now you can stop arguing about the one and only OOM
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small patch to allow replacing the OOM killer at runtime.
So now you
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:58:46PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:32:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
before you argue endlessly about the "Right OOM Killer (TM)", I
did a small
37 matches
Mail list logo
