Re: phk malloc, was (Re: ptmalloc2)
Gary Thorpe wrote:
> Basically, there is no free solution. If you want reliability in a
> system that uses over commit, you would have to manually set resource
> limits on basically ever process and make a static allocation of the
> resources you have and/or buy much more hardware than you need for the
All I'd like to see is a way to guarantee physical memory to special
processes with an environment variable. This would make everyone happy,
either for reliability or performance reasons. By performance I mean the
fact that sometimes you must have physical memory for fast access, and
can't use swap. I don't want to delay DNS or LDAP responses because
their data was in swap.
We would run single process, statically-alloced processes with the
variable set, and not care if any of the other, nonimportant processes
get killed due to overcommit and OOM situation.
> tasks most of the time (i.e. plan for the worst case). If you disable
> over commit, your machine will dynamically assign resources and should
> never start killing processes, but it may not allow 100% utilization
> (but I would bet that it is better than the first alternative). Both
I agree. Reliability is more important most of the time.
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 52 之 57 篇)：