On 2023/05/16 09:12, Rudolf Leitgeb wrote: > Lots of people (including myself) come from linux background and use > OpenBSD for specific security sensitive tasks. Since OpenBSD, like > every other desktop&server OS these days, has some strategy to deal > with OOM conditions, the term "OOM killer" is perfectly clear > regardless of what the actual implementation in OpenBSD is called. > > On Mon, 2023-05-15 at 21:32 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2023/05/15 19:55, bugreport555 wrote: > > > Ok, I tested it in various ways and tried to force OOM killer to > > > step in but it never did and all worked fine. > > > > OOM killer? This isn't Linux. > > >
The strategy is that the sysadmin should configure datasize limits so that processes hit memory allocation failures if they try to overreach. Defaults are setup with typical use-cases and machines in mind but you might know better and adjust. The kernel doesn't cope particularly well if you actually run out of memory. Long delays, deadlocks, panics are likely. Yes bugs, but they are difficult ones, and the above strategy (i.e. use the system's built in protection mechanisms for userland processes) is not a bad one. (I understand that even on Linux with "OOM killer" it is often still advisable to reboot when possible after triggering it.)
