| 1 |
On Thursday 22 April 2010 18:24:08 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 22.04.2010 17:50, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 3 |
> >> Shouldn't the kernel *swap* then ? |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > No, the OOM killer kicks in when the kernel has no more virtual memory, |
| 6 |
> > including swap. Either way, more RAM is the answer. Or fidn the app with |
| 7 |
> > the memory leak if you are unlucky enough to have one of those running |
| 8 |
> > around. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The added swapfile with one GB won't help here for a start? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It will certainly help. If your core problem is simply not enough RAM, then 1G |
| 13 |
more might be all you need. You'd have to run checks and do some monitoring to |
| 14 |
see if performance is affected. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I haven't followed the full thread so I don't know what you are running; and |
| 17 |
some daemons perform really badly if they have to touch swap. Apache for |
| 18 |
example, a busy MTA for another - disks are thousands of times slower than |
| 19 |
RAM, so if a webserver has to swap memory back in from disk, it almost |
| 20 |
instantly brings the server to a grinding halt. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
On my web and mail servers I have no swap at all, they do have lots and lots |
| 23 |
of RAM; my Sybase database servers have enormous amounts of swap. Each server |
| 24 |
has been profiled so it is set up to be as close to ideal as I can determine. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives