Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:09:05 -0400 From: "David Magda" <dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca> To: "Ronald Klop" <ronald-lists@klop.ws> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: protecting some processes from out-of-swap killer Message-ID: <61abe503a5bc8550e1413fd1933bea62.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca> In-Reply-To: <op.xxsqzdq1kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1504251316020.43520@woozle.rinet.ru> <20150425104336.GD13141@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1504251407420.43520@woozle.rinet.ru> <op.xxsqzdq1kndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, April 28, 2015 05:51, Ronald Klop wrote: > The OS trying to kill a process is probably not what you want. So when you > protect(1) postgres the OS will kill another process, which I hope is not > running without reason. > My advice would be to > - or increase your swap space > - or tune postgresql to use less memory > - or limit tmpfs (tmpfs uses swap if RAM is short) > - or tune zfs to use less memory Personally I didn't even know FreeBSD had an OOM killer. I regularly run into Linux's though, but that's because by default Linux allows over-committing of memory. I was under the impression that FreeBSD did not over-subscribe memory, and so would not allow a process to do a malloc() unless there was enough RAM+swap to satisfy it. Is this a mistaken assumption? (I probably have to buy the McKusick, Neville-Neil, Watson book.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61abe503a5bc8550e1413fd1933bea62.squirrel>