On 05/25/2011 03:01 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 05/24/11 5:50 PM, Andrej wrote:
Add more RAM? Look at tunables for other processes on
the machine? At the end of the day making the kernel shoot
anything out of despair shouldn't be the done thing.
somehow, 'real' unix has neither a OOMkiller nor
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/24/11 5:50 PM, Andrej wrote:
>>
>> Add more RAM? Look at tunables for other processes on
>> the machine? At the end of the day making the kernel shoot
>> anything out of despair shouldn't be the done thing.
>
> somehow, 'real' unix ha
On 05/24/11 5:50 PM, Andrej wrote:
Add more RAM? Look at tunables for other processes on
the machine? At the end of the day making the kernel shoot
anything out of despair shouldn't be the done thing.
somehow, 'real' unix has neither a OOMkiller nor does it flat out die
under heavy loads, it
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 17:32 -0700, Yang Zhang wrote:
> PG tends to be picked on by the Linux OOM killer, so lately we've been
> forcing the OOM killer to kill other processes first with this script:
>
> while true; do
> for i in `pgrep postgres`; do
> echo -17 > /proc/$i/oom_adj
> done
>
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Andrej wrote:
> On 25 May 2011 12:32, Yang Zhang wrote:
>> PG tends to be picked on by the Linux OOM killer, so lately we've been
>> forcing the OOM killer to kill other processes first with this script:
>>
>> while true; do
>> for i in `pgrep postgres`; do
>>
On 25 May 2011 12:32, Yang Zhang wrote:
> PG tends to be picked on by the Linux OOM killer, so lately we've been
> forcing the OOM killer to kill other processes first with this script:
>
> while true; do
> for i in `pgrep postgres`; do
> echo -17 > /proc/$i/oom_adj
> done
> sleep 60
> done
