Re: configurability of OOM killer
От
Florian G. Pflug
Тема
Re: configurability of OOM killer
Дата
Msg-id
47A4D741.1060604@phlo.org
Ответ на
Re: configurability of OOM killer (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
configurability of OOM killer Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42@gmail.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau.pg@googlemail.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42@gmail.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Re: configurability of OOM killer Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
Tom Lane wrote: > Another thought is to tell people to run the postmaster under a > per-process memory ulimit that is conservative enough so that the > system can't get into the regime where the OOM killer activates. > ulimit actually behaves the way we want, ie, it's polite about > telling you you can't have more memory ;-). That will only work if postgres in the only service running on the machine, though, no? If the postmaster and it's chilren use up 80% of the available memory, then launching a forkbomb will still lead to the postmaster being killed (Since it will get the most points). Or at least this is how I interpret link posted originally. And *if* postgres is the only service, does setting a ulimit have an advantage over disabling memory overcommitting? AFAICS, memory overcommit helps if a program creates 50mb of mosty read-only data, and than forks 10 times, or if it maps a large amount of memory but writes to that block only sparsely. Since postgres does neither, a dedicated postgres server won't see any benefits from overcommitting memory I'd think. regards, Florian Pflug
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления