On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> It is part of the issue. The system would never go OOM, users would go
> OOR (Out-Of-Resources). Out of resources is a manageable entity, that
> can be adjusted from the results of performance analysis. OOM is a
> catastrophic failure of the system. If the system doesn't provide a
> way to control it, direct which user is at fault, and as directed by
> management policy, then that system is considered buggy and not ready
> for production use.
>
> >Besides, the "random abort that may crash the system" is not the
> >alternative. It is a choice of WHICH process gets the OOM error first
> >- the "true culprit" (the memory hog), or any old process which
> >happens to want memory?
>
> Right now there is no way to determine which proces should get terminated.
Why not set resource limmits? It's just like any other resource .. if I
allow users unlimmited access to it I can fully expect to have someone
crash the system.
Gerhard
-- Gerhard Mack<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.
- 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 - 21:00:28 EST