Re: configurability of OOM killer
От | Decibel! |
---|---|
Тема | Re: configurability of OOM killer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080205213339.GI1212@decibel.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: configurability of OOM killer (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: configurability of OOM killer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 08:46:26PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I cannot see any way of restricting global memory > > consumption that won't hurt performance and flexibility. > > We've discussed particular ways of doing this previously and not got > very far, its true. I think we need to separate problem identification > from problem resolution, so we can get past the first stage and look for > solutions. > > This is my longest running outstanding problem with managing Postgres on > operational systems. > > Sure, OOM killer sucks. So there's two problems, not one. Yes, this problem goes way beyond OOM. Just try and configure work_memory aggressively on a server that might see 50 database connections, and do it in such a way that you won't swap. Good luck. We really do need a way to limit how much memory we will use in total. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: