From: | "Robert D(dot) Nelson" <RDNELSON(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Yann Ramin <atrus(at)atrustrivalie(dot)eu(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Expectations of MEM requirements for a DB with |
Date: | 2000-11-07 13:25:00 |
Message-ID: | 3A06A779@rba6.rbapro.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>Thats very true. FreeBSD is a little smarter, and actualy kills a runaway
>process if it allocates more memory than is available. It of course tries
It's less about its ability to kill processes (Linux does it too), but sane
default timeouts. I dunno about FreeBSD, but it can take Linux over an hour
to report an out of memory condition in any definitive form - the box
slowing to a crawl doesn't count as definitive ;) It's kinda like, why do I
have to wait 2 minutes for telnet to kill itself if I telnet to a bad
address in windows?
>to
>page things in and out of swap first, hoping the high memory condition will
>soon resolve its self. FreeBSD is also one of the only OSes I've seen that
>kick processes (idle ones, i.e., cron, getty, etc) out of memory for kernel
>buffers and disk cache to improve preformance for busier ones.
Well that's kinda dangerous in and of itself. I haven't run into *too many*
OOM conditions (I do try and stack my boxes! er...) but I've noticed linux
tends to kill kswapd first :/
Rob Nelson
rdnelson(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | joe | 2000-11-07 14:08:12 | Re: Synchronizing Data? |
Previous Message | Sergio A. Kessler | 2000-11-07 13:12:22 | Re: Book PDF to be removed soon |