| |||||||||||||
Taming the OOM killerTaming the OOM killerPosted Feb 6, 2009 7:46 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: Taming the OOM killer by hppnq Parent article: Taming the OOM killer
Granted, but then you don't want random processes dying either. That can also have adverse affects on service levels. In that case you are more likely to want a system that will stop allocating memory in time.
(Log in to post comments)
Taming the OOM killer Posted Feb 6, 2009 8:58 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
it's actually far easier to deal with processes dieing then the entire machine effectivly locking up in a swap storm.
you probably already have tools in place to detect processes dieing and either restart them (if the memory preasure is temporary) or failover to another box (gracefully for all the other processes on the box)
|
|||||||||||||