On Wednesday 06 April 2005 18:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > What I don't understand is that with true strict overcommit, the kernel
> > should never need to kill your process since there is always in
> > principle enough room.
>
> Indeed. Are you *sure* you have overcom
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton writes:
> > You might want to try vm.overcommit_memory=1. You don't appear to be the
> > only one suffering from an over-zealous oom-killer.
> >
> > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.2/1295.html
>
> Hmm, in particu
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> Ok, I think the point I'm trying to make is that with "strict
> autocommit" in its current state isn't really that strict and just
> causes the problem to happen elsewhere.
Right, but that is surely just a kernel bug, and one that's not been
around very long. Pre
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:37:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > What I don't understand is the problem with overcommitting.
>
> The problem with Linux overcommit is that when the kernel does run out
> of memory, the process it chooses to kill isn't necessarily one t
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> What I don't understand is the problem with overcommitting.
The problem with Linux overcommit is that when the kernel does run out
of memory, the process it chooses to kill isn't necessarily one that was
using an unreasonable amount of memory. The earlier version
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:52:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > What I don't understand is that with true strict overcommit, the kernel
> > should never need to kill your process since there is always in
> > principle enough room.
>
> Indeed. Are you *sure* you hav
Richard Huxton writes:
> You might want to try vm.overcommit_memory=1. You don't appear to be the
> only one suffering from an over-zealous oom-killer.
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0501.2/1295.html
Hmm, in particular Andrea Arcangeli implies here
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hyperm
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> What I don't understand is that with true strict overcommit, the kernel
> should never need to kill your process since there is always in
> principle enough room.
Indeed. Are you *sure* you have overcommit turned off? That should
disable the OOM killer altogethe
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 17:03, Richard Huxton wrote:
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Hi,
We have switched to kernel 2.6.11.6 from kernel 2.4.26 ... since this
date we have many troubles with PostgreSQL and most of them seems to be
memory troubles.
As far as we can see, kernel kills
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 17:03, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have switched to kernel 2.6.11.6 from kernel 2.4.26 ... since this
> > date we have many troubles with PostgreSQL and most of them seems to be
> > memory troubles.
> >
> > As far as we can see, kerne
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:35:43PM +0200, Hervé Piedvache wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have switched to kernel 2.6.11.6 from kernel 2.4.26 ... since this date we
> have many troubles with PostgreSQL and most of them seems to be memory
> troubles.
>
> As far as we can see, kernel kills the postmaster pro
Hervé Piedvache wrote:
Hi,
We have switched to kernel 2.6.11.6 from kernel 2.4.26 ... since this date we
have many troubles with PostgreSQL and most of them seems to be memory
troubles.
As far as we can see, kernel kills the postmaster process when it begins to
use swap. You can see the output
12 matches
Mail list logo
