Ed Grimm wrote:
Danger: Rant ahead. Proceed with caution.
[my summary of mlocks discussion removed]
In the discussion you referred to, all of the people saying this was a
bad idea were using terms like, I think. None of them had the
situation themselves, so have a difficult time coming to
Bill Marrs wrote:
At 10:53 PM 3/22/2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
top and libgtop use the same source of information, so it has nothing
to do with these tools.
'top' has the ability to display SWAP on a per-process basis (you have
to change the defaults to see it, but it's there).
yeah,
At 10:53 PM 3/22/2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
top and libgtop use the same source of information, so it has nothing to
do with these tools.
'top' has the ability to display SWAP on a per-process basis (you have to
change the defaults to see it, but it's there).
I didn't find this per-process SWAP
Recently on this list the idea of 'pinning' or locking the root apache process
in memory has been discussed with some interest. The reason being was that some
users have experienced the situtaion where a server becomes loaded, and the root
apache process gets swapped out, and in the process
Daniel Hanks wrote:
Recently on this list the idea of 'pinning' or locking the root apache process
in memory has been discussed with some interest. The reason being was that some
users have experienced the situtaion where a server becomes loaded, and the root
apache process gets swapped out,
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
See the discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10165973081r=1w=2
where it was said that it's
a very bad idea to use mlock and variants. Moreover the memory doesn't
get unshared
when the parent pages are paged
Stas,
Thanks for tracking that down.
So, the problem is our tools. For me, that's GTopLimit (but also SizeLimit).
I would think it must be possible to cajole these two into realizing their
error. top seems to know how much a process has swapped. If GTopLimit
could know that, the number
Stas Bekman wrote:
Moreover the memory doesn't
get unshared
when the parent pages are paged out, it's the reporting tools that
report the wrong
information and of course mislead the the size limiting modules which
start killing
the processes.
Apache::SizeLimit just reads /proc on Linux.
Stas Bekman wrote:
Moreover the memory doesn't get unshared when the parent pages are
paged out, it's the reporting tools that report the wrong
information and of course mislead the the size limiting modules
which start killing the processes.
Apache::SizeLimit just reads /proc on
Danger: Rant ahead. Proceed with caution.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
See the discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10165973081r=1w=2 where it was
said that it's a very bad idea to use mlock and variants. Moreover the
memory doesn't get
Daniel Hanks wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
See the discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=10165973081r=1w=2
where it was said that it's
a very bad idea to use mlock and variants. Moreover the memory doesn't
get unshared
when the
Perrin Harkins wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Moreover the memory doesn't
get unshared
when the parent pages are paged out, it's the reporting tools that
report the wrong
information and of course mislead the the size limiting modules which
start killing
the processes.
12 matches
Mail list logo
