| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
death by swapdeath by swapPosted Nov 4, 2009 18:21 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: death by swap by jabby Parent article: Toward a smarter OOM killer
I think Ubuntu still do that by default :) Yes, the workaround for swapping to death is allocating no or little swap. I would hope though, that my "algorithm" above would reduce the need for workarounds though, by making sure that all non-hogging processes can have their working set in real memory.
Not sure that 32GB of swap would be appropriate even then though...
(Log in to post comments)
death by swap Posted Nov 6, 2009 11:40 UTC (Fri) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] >>> I think Ubuntu still do that by default :)Yes Ubuntu still do that by default...despite many bug reports like mine. Note that my bug report is old, very old (pre-Gutsy time) => https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/partman-auto/+bug/134505 No reaction at all from the Ubuntu devs....very discouraging.
|
|
||||||||||||