Re: OOM Test Case - Failed!

2000-10-21 Thread Byron Stanoszek
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > The oom killer avoided killing your busy, large, root-owned > > process. Don't run gcc compiles as root. Protecting root > > processes is an explicit design goal here. > > Also: > > 1) his system pretty much continued to run > 2) since only httpd ch

Re: OOM Test Case - Failed!

2000-10-21 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Stephen Tweedie wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:02:52AM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > > > I am very unimpressed with the current OOM killer. After 10 days of online > > time, I decided to try compiling gcc again, the very culprit that killed my > > last system using 2.4

Re: OOM Test Case - Failed!

2000-10-18 Thread Stephen Tweedie
Hi, On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:02:52AM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > I am very unimpressed with the current OOM killer. After 10 days of online > time, I decided to try compiling gcc again, the very culprit that killed my > last system using 2.4.0-test8 Friday night (to which I was unable to r

Re: OOM Test Case - Failed!

2000-10-18 Thread Ingo Oeser
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 10:02:52AM -0400, Byron Stanoszek wrote: > I am very unimpressed with the current OOM killer. [...] > We need to decide on a better algorithm, > albeit simple, that will alleviate this problem before 2.4.0 final comes out. We don't need to decide on one, you can provide a

OOM Test Case - Failed!

2000-10-17 Thread Byron Stanoszek
I am very unimpressed with the current OOM killer. After 10 days of online time, I decided to try compiling gcc again, the very culprit that killed my last system using 2.4.0-test8 Friday night (to which I was unable to reset the system until Monday morning). GCC started compiling normally, until