Ditto, but with C3 (256MB) and 512MB swapfile. Scott James Remnant wrote on 2010-08-24: > The OOM killer taking out ureadahead is not a problem; > ureadahead will have had at least some chance to do some > good work.
I'd be concerned about this: the OOM killer applies heuristics only and can never guarantee to kill the process that is responsible for low- memory conditions, so if OOM runs at all, system robustness is no longer guaranteed. This may lead to unpredictable and nasty behaviours when the platform is no longer freshly installed, extra packages and daemons have been added etc.... Relying on the OOM killer behaviour for correct operation of the system feels unsafe to me. -- ureadahead generating oom messages during boot. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/600359 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
