Re: Really out of memory?
От | Ben Chobot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Really out of memory? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0906021505121.25644@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Really out of memory? (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > It's got nothing to do with how much swap is in use. It's preventing > you from allocating memory that *hypothetically* might not be available > if every byte of allocated memory were actually used. > > For example, on my desktop I have 1GB of RAM of which about 600MB is > free, yet there is 1.4GB committed. With overcommit off my machine > may not boot. As you can see, only 25% of committed memory is actually > needed, because lots of pages are blank or shared. Ofcourse, all those > copies of libc are realistically never not going to be shared so it's a > good bet. > > But with overcommit off you can see that you might want to have double > or triple the amount of swap to handle the hypothetical case. No, sorry, I don't see why I would need more swap when I've disabled memory overcommit. As I understand it, the kernel should be able to allocate (swap + (physical * overcommit_ratio)), which in my case is just swap+physical, and it seems to not want to do that.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: