> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:26:01PM -0600, you [Ken Brownfield] claimed:
> >
> > | > 3) Memory allocation failures and OOM triggers
> > | > even though caches remain full.
> > |
> > | I have not had one up to now in everyday life with 2.4.17
> >
> > I'm seeing this in malloc()-heavy apps, but fairly sporadic unless I
> > create a test case.
>
> I'm seeing this on 2GB IA64 (2.4.16-17). I posted a _very_ simple test case
> to lkml a while a go. It didn't happen on 256MB x86.
>
> I plan to try -aa shortly, now that I got patches to make it compile on
> IA64.
Ok, I am going to buy more mem right now to see what you see.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hm, I have about 24GB of NFS traffic every day, which may be too less. What
exactly are you seeing in this case (logfiles etc.)?
> It's not that the kernel is bad, it's that there are specific things
> that shouldn't be forgotten because of a "the kernel is good"
> evaluation.
Hopefully nobody does this here, I don't.
> Like I said, I suspect that most people with machines in lower-load
> environments don't have these issues, but "number of people effected" is
> only one metric to judge the importance of an issue.
The number of people is not really interesting for me, as the boxes get bigger
every day it is only a matter of time to see more people with lots of GB (as an
example).
> Of course, I'm not biased or anything. ;-)
How could you ? ;-))
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/