From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Linux2.6 overcommit behaviour |
Date: | 2003-08-28 11:59:04 |
Message-ID: | 3F4DEE88.1080009@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I take that last remark back - it is there whether or not
CONFIG_SECURITY is defined or not. The code is in 2 places - ugh.
andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Yes, in 2.6, which is not yet released. Even after it is released I
> expect it to take some time to bed down and make its way into vendor
> releases, if the history of 2.4 is anything to go by.
>
> Incidentally, it looks to me like it is only in 2.6 if your kernel is
> built with CONFIG_SECURITY, which I expect most will be.
>
> andrew
>
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following is from Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting
>> -------------
>> 2 - (NEW) strict overcommit. The total address space commit
>> for the system is not permitted to exceed swap + a
>> configurable percentage (default is 50) of physical RAM.
>> Depending on the percentage you use, in most situations
>> this means a process will not be killed while accessing
>> pages but will receive errors on memory allocation as
>> appropriate.
>> -------------
>>
>> Looks like it's been taken care once for all.
>>
>> Shridhar
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-08-28 12:09:15 | Re: [HACKERS] 2-phase commit |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-28 11:52:36 | Re: Linux2.6 overcommit behaviour |