daveg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I work with a client that runs 16Gb memory with 16Gb of swap on dual opterons
> dedicated to postgres. They have large tables and like hash joins as they are
> often the fastest way to a result, so work_mem is set fairly large. Sometimes
> postgres is very inaccu
daveg wrote:
> When this happens the machine runs out of memory and swap. Without the oom
> killer it simply hangs the machine which is inconvenient as it is at a remote
> location. The oom killer usually lets the machine recover and postgres restart
> without a hard reboot.
>
If vm.overcommit is
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:26:52PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 23:55:07 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:20:39PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000,
> > > John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 23:55:07 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:20:39PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000,
> > John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Good people,
> > > Just had a thought!
> > > Might it be worth while p
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 10:20:39PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000,
> John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Good people,
> > Just had a thought!
> > Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
> > Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/o
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 23:03:06 +1000,
John Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good people,
>
> Just had a thought!
>
> Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
> Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
> (Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c)
Wouldn't it be
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:47:57PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I think that I've run into the OOM killer without a fork() being
> involved, but I could be wrong. Is it possible to be hit by the OOM
> killer if no applications use fork()?
fork() is the obvious overcomitter. If Netscape wants to spaw
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Jeff Davis wrote:
> involved, but I could be wrong. Is it possible to be hit by the OOM
> killer if no applications use fork()?
Sure, whenever the system is out of mem and the os can't find a free page
then it kills a process. If you check the kernel log you can see if the
o
> It's not an easy decision. Linux isn't wrong. Solaris isn't wrong.
> Most people never hit these problems, and the people that do, are
> just as likely to hit one problem, or the other. The grass is always
> greener on the side of the fence that isn't hurting me right now,
> and all that.
>
> Ch
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:25:00PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> It's happened to me...
> Usually it's when there's some other runaway process, and the kernel
> decides to kill PostgreSQL because it can't tell the difference.
> I really don't like that "feature" in linux. Nobody has been able to
> exp
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 01:25:00PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:03:06PM +1000, John Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
> >>Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
> >>(Describe
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:03:06PM +1000, John Hansen wrote:
>
>>Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
>>Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
>>(Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c)
>
>
> Has it actually happened to you? Pos
Tom Lane Wrote:
> (a) wouldn't that require root privilege? (b) how would we
> determine whether we are on a system to which this applies?
> (c) is it actually documented in a way that makes you think
> it'll be a permanently supported feature (ie, somewhere
> outside the source code)?
(a)
Martijn van Oosterhout Wrote:
> Has it actually happened to you? PostgreSQL is pretty good
> about its memory usage. Besides, seems to me it should be an
> system admisitrator descision.
No, Just came across this by chance, and thought it might be a good
idea.
Perhaps as a postgresql.conf sett
"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
> Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
> (Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c)
(a) wouldn't that require root privilege? (b) how would we determine
whether we are on a system
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:03:06PM +1000, John Hansen wrote:
> Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
> Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
> (Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c)
Has it actually happened to you? PostgreSQL is pretty good about its
memory us
Good people,
Just had a thought!
Might it be worth while protecting the postmaster from an OOM Kill on
Linux by setting /proc/{pid}/oom_adj to -17 ?
(Described vaguely in mm/oom_kill.c)
Kind Regards,
John Hansen
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: i
17 matches
Mail list logo
