Re: Pre-allocation of shared memory ...

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom, et al,
>
> > > Given that swap space is cheap, and that killing random processes is
> > > obviously bad, it's not apparent to me why people think this is not
> > > a good approach --- at least for high-reliability servers. And Linux
> > > would definitely like to think of itself as a server-grade OS.
>
> Regrettably, few of the GUI installers for Linux (SuSE or Red Hat, for
> example), include adequate swap space in their "suggested" disk formatting.
> Some versions of some distributions do not create a swap partition at all;
> others allocate only 130mb to this partition regardless of actual RAM.
>
> So regardless of what they *should* be doing, there's thousands of Linux users
> out there with too little or no swap on disk ...

Yes, I have seen that on BSD's too. I am unsure if we need actual swap
backing store, or just sufficient RAM to allow fork expansion for dirty
pages.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073