From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 12 18:35:46 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E488E16A4CE for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:35:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B24643D3F for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:35:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3CIZdnm016379; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:35:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <86ll7ox7re.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <200504121224.j3CCOFXL019177@marlena.vvi.at> <011a01c53f66$4035aa00$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <86ll7ox7re.fsf@xps.des.no> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:35:39 -0500 To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ), Steven Hartland From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.2 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel killing processes when out of swap X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:35:47 -0000 At 6:46 PM +0200 4/12/05, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >"Steven Hartland" writes: >> Thanks for the feedback seems very strange that sshd was the first thing= the >> kernel killed off; so unless it was actually=20 >>at fault ( would be very strange ) >> it would have been one of the smallest not largest processes. >> The box has runs several 200M+ process and more 100M+ where >> as sshd is usually 6M. >> >> So this leads me to the questions: >> 1. Any know issues ssh which could make it eat memory? >> 2. Is there possibly a bug with the "large process detection"? > >There is no "large process detection". The first process that tries >to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap gets killed. =46rom time-to-time, we talk about implementing some form of SIGDANGER, similar to what AIX has. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu