yeah, so historically i think some late 2.2.x kernels (last time i cared 
about this behavior) behaved more like the "always overcommit" option, 
while solaris ( around 2.7 vintage ) is closer to the "don't overcommit" 
option.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009, Lamont Granquist wrote:
>
>> historically it used to be the case that to make use of any swap you
>> needed more swap than available RAM, and 2xRAM used to be the practice.
>
> Hi Lamont.  Some swap algorithms actually wouldn't work properly unless
> swap was at least double ram.  No modern OS should act that way through.
>
>> then with virtual addressing of swap that became 1xRAM.  with solaris i
>> believe that you still want to have some swap since it will OOM earlier if
>> it doesn't have any swap (its been years since i went through the details
>> of this and don't know if solaris 10 still goes OOM at the same
>> threshold).  linux is extremely lazy, however, so it runs fine swapless.
>>
>> ( i belive the difference is that if you attempt to malloc some massive
>> amount of memory on solaris it will want to allocate some anon memory or
>> swap space even for the anon pages that aren't being used -- and when used
>> + allocated anon memory exceeds RAM + swap that solaris will OOM -- linux
>> is lazy and will just OOM once it actually can't get any pages ).
>
> It sounds like you're talking about memory overcommit.  The behaviour of
> Linux is configurable but the default on modern systems is to do heuristic
> checking.
>
> http://www.linuxinsight.com/proc_sys_vm_overcommit_memory.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob
>
> -- 
> I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy
> http://www.practicalsysadmin.com
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
> http://lopsa.org/
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Reply via email to