Hello
I have been trapped by the advice from the manual to use "sysctl -w
vm.overcommit_memory=2" when using Linux (see 16.4.3. Linux Memory
Overcommit). This value should only be used when PostgreSQL is the
only Application running on the machine in question. It should be
checked against
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:26:12PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have been trapped by the advice from the manual to use "sysctl -w
> vm.overcommit_memory=2" when using Linux (see 16.4.3. Linux Memory
> Overcommit). This value should only be used when PostgreSQL is the
I think you
Zitat von Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 04:26:12PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
Hello
I have been trapped by the advice from the manual to use "sysctl -w
vm.overcommit_memory=2" when using Linux (see 16.4.3. Linux Memory
Overcommit). This value should only be used w
* Andrew Sullivan:
> You _want_ the fork to fail when the kernel can't (over)commit the
> memory, because otherwise the stupid genius kernel will come along
> and maybe blip your postmaster on the head, causing it to die by
> surprise.
The other side of the story is that with overcommit, the mach
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:23:38AM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> I don't want to start the discussion what is the rigth thing todo,
Then you shouldn't ask here. The manual was changed to say what it does
after considerable community discussion. In my view, the Linux kernel's
behaviour is complet
Zitat von Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:23:38AM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
I don't want to start the discussion what is the rigth thing todo,
Then you shouldn't ask here. The manual was changed to say what it does
after considerable community discussion. In
Listaccount wrote:
> I would have not been surprised if the OOM-Killer would go around in case
> of short memory but i was surprised to see fork failed with a system having
> 1GB Memory available.
We've had *a lot* of problem reports due to the OOM killer.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> I would have not been surprised if the OOM-Killer would go around in
> case of short memory but i was surprised to see fork failed with a
> system having 1GB Memory available.
You don't understand: the system _did not_ have 1G of m
Zitat von Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 03:08:36PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
I would have not been surprised if the OOM-Killer would go around in
case of short memory but i was surprised to see fork failed with a
system having 1GB Memory available.
You don't und
Dear docs mavens:
Please see below for a possible adjustment to the docs. Is it agreeable?
If so, I'll see about putting together a patch.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:19:24PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> >What I _would_ support in the docs is the following addition in 17.4.3,
> >where this is dis
Zitat von Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Dear docs mavens:
Please see below for a possible adjustment to the docs. Is it agreeable?
If so, I'll see about putting together a patch.
Thanxs !
BTW : How can one find out the application doing unused allocations?
What value of "ps" outpu
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:01:52PM +0100, Listaccount wrote:
> BTW : How can one find out the application doing unused allocations?
> What value of "ps" output to watch for?
As far as I know, the only way to learn that is to use a debugger. If the
OS knew this, it'd be able to shoot the misbeh
Listaccount wrote:
> Yes, but the documentation should at least warn if some setting
> *could* lead to trouble you would not have otherwise.
>
> > What I _would_ support in the docs is the following addition in 17.4.3,
> > where this is discussed:
> >
> > . . .it will lower the chances signi
13 matches
Mail list logo
