Re: configurability of OOM killer
От | Florian G. Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: configurability of OOM killer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47A4D741.1060604@phlo.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: configurability of OOM killer (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: configurability of OOM killer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Another thought is to tell people to run the postmaster under a > per-process memory ulimit that is conservative enough so that the > system can't get into the regime where the OOM killer activates. > ulimit actually behaves the way we want, ie, it's polite about > telling you you can't have more memory ;-). That will only work if postgres in the only service running on the machine, though, no? If the postmaster and it's chilren use up 80% of the available memory, then launching a forkbomb will still lead to the postmaster being killed (Since it will get the most points). Or at least this is how I interpret link posted originally. And *if* postgres is the only service, does setting a ulimit have an advantage over disabling memory overcommitting? AFAICS, memory overcommit helps if a program creates 50mb of mosty read-only data, and than forks 10 times, or if it maps a large amount of memory but writes to that block only sparsely. Since postgres does neither, a dedicated postgres server won't see any benefits from overcommitting memory I'd think. regards, Florian Pflug
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: