User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Delaying the OOM killer

Delaying the OOM killer

Posted Mar 13, 2011 4:23 UTC (Sun) by dmag (guest, #17775)
In reply to: Delaying the OOM killer by Per_Bothner
Parent article: Delaying the OOM killer

> Imagine 100 years from now [..] using this sentence as a reference.

Riiight. A future in which LWN is the only known text of this time? And just this page so future historians don't notice his penchant for witty comments like this?

Besides, Google hasn't even hit 10M machines yet, so I think Corbet is spot on.


(Log in to post comments)

Delaying the OOM killer

Posted Mar 13, 2011 5:39 UTC (Sun) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

Agreed.

Further, it is widely reported that google go to some efforts to squeeze as much work as they possibly can out of the computers that they do have, which is the real point of background to this article.

So it certainly appears that they do not have spare computing resources.. is that the same as "not many computers" - It's hard to say. Many is a relative term:

I do have many computers at home - 7 or 8.
Google doesn't have many computers in their data centers - less than 10 million.

Delaying the OOM killer

Posted Mar 14, 2011 13:14 UTC (Mon) by alextingle (guest, #20593) [Link]

*fewer* than 10 million.

;-)

Delaying the OOM killer

Posted Mar 14, 2011 13:43 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The future historians would also have to be unaware of the existence of Google, its size, and probably also of the existence of sarcasm. Given that we can spot sarcasm in the works of Chaucer and in Beowulf, I'd say that these future historians are remarkably implausible.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds