Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:44:15 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Ivan <Ivan.Djelic@prism.uvsq.fr>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990922131457.26337A-100000@shell-3.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <199909221727.LAA14290@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > Maybe, and then again, maybe not. A program is requesting memory, so > putting other processes to sleep *keeps* them from freeing up memory. The process that is trying to use memory is put to sleep. In the machine runs out of swap cases I have seen (which isn't many, because I build boxes with lots of swap) there has been one rogue process (or group of related processes) that was using up swap. When the process hits this, your problem is going to go away. It might make sense to wait to wake processes until resource usage has dropped below some threshold, so that an operator has a chance to intervene and correct the problem. Clearly, this won't solve all problems. I think it could be made quite useful, thoguh. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.990922131457.26337A-100000>