Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937260AbWLDSrx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:47:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937262AbWLDSrx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:47:53 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:50099 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937261AbWLDSrw (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:47:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200612041846.kB4Ikx2F026455@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> To: Aucoin@Houston.RR.com cc: "'Horst H. von Brand'" , "'Kyle Moffett'" , "'Tim Schmielau'" , "'Andrew Morton'" , torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clameter@sgi.com Subject: Re: la la la la ... swappiness In-Reply-To: Message from "Aucoin" of "Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:49:12 MDT." <200612041749.kB4HnDNw008901@ms-smtp-02.texas.rr.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.5 (beta27) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:46:59 -0300 From: "Horst H. von Brand" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (inti.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.21.155]); Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:46:59 -0300 (CLST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1980 Lines: 52 Aucoin wrote: > From: Horst H. von Brand [mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl] > > That means that there isn't a need for that memory at all (and so they > In the current isolated non-production, not actually bearing a load test > case yes. But if I can't get it to not swap on an idle system I have no hope > of avoiding OOM on a loaded system. How do you /know/ it won't just be recycled in the production case? > > In any case, how do you know it is the tar data that stays around, and not > > just that the number of pages "in use" stays roughly constant? > > I'm not dumping the contents of memory so I don't. OK. > > - What you are doing, step by step > > Trying to deliver a high availability, linearly scalable, clustered iSCSI > storage solution that can be upgraded with minimum downtime. That is your ultimate goal, not what you are doing, step by step. > > - What are your exact requirements > OOM not to kill anything. Can't ever guarantee that (unless you have the exact memory requirements beforehand, and enough RAM for the worst case). > > - In what exact way is it missbehaving. Please tell /in detail/ how you > OOM kills important stuff. What "important stuff"? How come OOM kills it, when there is plenty of free(able) memory around? Is this in the production setting, or are you just afraid it could happen by what you see in the "current isolated non-production, not actually bearing a load test" case? -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/