SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

Hi, My system is a Redhat 5.2 running on linux 2.2.6 + raid0145-19990421. I tested if the system is stable while swapping heavily. I tested a regular swap area and a soft-RAID1 (2 disks) swaparea. So I wrote e little program wich does basically the following: allocate as much as possible

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Benno Senoner wrote: Hi, My system is a Redhat 5.2 running on linux 2.2.6 + raid0145-19990421. I tested if the system is stable while swapping heavily. I tested a regular swap area and a soft-RAID1 (2 disks) swaparea. So I wrote e little program wich does

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

Alvin Starr wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Benno Senoner wrote: Hi, My system is a Redhat 5.2 running on linux 2.2.6 + raid0145-19990421. I tested if the system is stable while swapping heavily. I tested a regular swap area and a soft-RAID1 (2 disks) swaparea. So I wrote e

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

David Guo wrote: Hi. If you read the document of the raid. You'll know swap on raid is not safe. And you don't have any reason to use swap on raid. Because kernel handles the swap on different disk will not be worse then raid. I think you can checkout the docs with raid. Yours David. Not

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

Benno Senoner wrote: ... 1) my frist BIG QUESTION is if there is a design flaw in malloc() or not: No, malloc() should return nil if the memory requested cannot be backed by real storage. However, some unicies are configured to perform just as you discovered because much of the memory

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

I don't see the relevance to linux-raid either, but the 2.2.x kernel does have /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory which will enable the below behaviour. It's off by default though... --- tani hosokawa river styx internet On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Gianni Mariani wrote: Benno Senoner wrote: ...

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Benno Senoner wrote: Hi, My system is a Redhat 5.2 running on linux 2.2.6 + raid0145-19990421. 1) my frist BIG QUESTION is if there is a design flaw in malloc() or not: when I do (number of successfully allocated blocks)* 4MB then I get 2GB of

Raid crash and burn issues.

I tried to use the software watchdog on a system running with a raid1 root file system(this may also fail on other systems). I kicked the dog and then settled back to wait for a minute to verify that things rebooted correctly. They did not. I got a kernel Aieee message and a "kernel recursion

Watchdog-problem [was: Raid crash and burn issues.]

Hi! On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Alvin Starr wrote: I tried to use the software watchdog on a system running with a raid1 root [...] At that point I was hung and had to perform a hard reset. What is "cat /proc/sys/kernel/panic" saying? Bye, Rob

Re: SWAP CRASHES LIUNX 2.2.6 = malloc() design problem ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see the relevance to linux-raid either, but the 2.2.x kernel does have /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory which will enable the below behaviour. It's off by default though... thanks, I will try this /proc setting, I am using a standard RH5.2 box with a 2.2.6