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
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
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
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo