On 15 Mar 2000, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> Den 14-Mar-00 00:13:50 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Overcomittable memory (Was: Linux 2.2.15pre12)":
>
> > You may wonder why I assume processes should die when unable to allocate
> > memory. Here's why:
>
> > syslog tried to allocate a small buffer to handle incoming data. It fails.
> > Options: (1) Silently discard all incoming data, invisibly becoming a
> > bitbucket. (2) Exit, making it clear there is now no syslog facility, and
> > hoping that we will be respawned later, once the critical problem (which
> > this is) has been resolved.
>
> > Again, (2) seems the more appropriate.
>
> Not at all. If syslogd chooses (1), system logging will automatically
> start working again when memory is freed. (2) would required external
> action to restore system logging, even when memory becomes available again.
> (2) is clearly not what you want for a program like syslogd. The same goes
> for init, inetd, named, sendmail, httpd, nfsd, etc.
No. If you leave the system unattended, it should be configured to respawn
syslogd etc. automatically. If they die during OOM conditions, then
respawn if and when the system recovers, OOM recovery will be easier,
without real loss of functionality.
James.
-
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 - 21:00:21 EST