Allowing small allocations to fail
Allowing small allocations to fail
Posted Mar 12, 2015 7:55 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313)In reply to: Allowing small allocations to fail by epa
Parent article: Allowing small allocations to fail
Personally, I operate servers with minimal or no swap, but the people who are screaming about how evil overcommit and copy-on-write are need to have a LOT of swap so that they can pretend that it's real memory when a program forks.
Oh, by the way, they are still betting that it's never going to be needed, because if it actually was needed, the system would be unusable. I'd rather have a system fail, even if it triggers the OOM killer (which does log what it's doing, so my central log system can detect failures, including the failure of the log forwarder), rather than slow to a crawl but still appear to be working.
Posted Mar 13, 2015 7:03 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 17, 2015 18:54 UTC (Tue)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 18, 2015 9:58 UTC (Wed)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link]
Isn't it also useful if you expect your program to be ported to operating systems without fork()/exec() (Windows) or operating systems where the GUI libraries don't like fork() (from what I've heard, this is the case on Mac)?
Allowing small allocations to fail
Allowing small allocations to fail
Allowing small allocations to fail
