On 21 Mar 2000 14:4:47 +0100, you wrote:
>Den 16-Mar-00 11:39:20 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Overcomittable memory":
>> On 15 Mar 2000, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
>>> Not at all. If syslogd chooses (1), system logging will automatically
>>> start working again when memory is freed. (2) would required external
>>> action to restore system logging, even when memory becomes available again.
>>> (2) is clearly not what you want for a program like syslogd. The same goes
>>> for init, inetd, named, sendmail, httpd, nfsd, etc.
>
>> No. If you leave the system unattended, it should be configured to respawn
>> syslogd etc. automatically.
>
> That respawner is just another program which has to stay around
>regardless of OOM situations. The kernel doesn't know that this program is
>supposed to respawn other daemons, and the kernel doesn't need to know it.
>It just needs to let the program use the resources that have been
>successfully allocated. That is necessary if you want a reliable system
>where programs aren't killed unexpectedly.
There is nothing unexpected about being killed if the system is OOM!
If the respawner has already allocated all the resources it needs, it
is fine. It won't be killed by anything, unless there is something
VERY serious wrong (like the respawner itself has failed.)
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST