"A month of sundays ago James Sutherland wrote:"
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Sean Hunter wrote:
> > people keep ignoring? The in-kernel OOM killer is not (meant to be) a
> > finely-honed user-customisable tool. Its a very effective thing when
> > the memory state is completely dire. It should never run, and when it
> > does, its the last-ditch defence and if it wasn't there your system
> > would die anyway.
>
> Precisely - complaining that you would rather have your box die
> uncontrollably, because you are sitting there holding its hand 24x7 to
> watch the lights go out, is hardly productive. If you ARE monitoring it
> closely enough to fix things, you would fix them long before the disaster
> recovery OOM routine cuts in!
This is pure nonsense. You don't understand. I have _dozens_ of boxes.
They work fine without OOM (i.e. in 2.0.*). With OOM they murder
themselves.
If Rik's patch gets rid of the current OOM behaviour, then I am all in
favour of it. It cannot make things worse. But why not just get rid of
it? Things worked fine in 2.0.*, as far as I can see. I didn't get
cron and init being killed.
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST