On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, John P. Looney wrote:
> And it still annoys me that this happened on linux, from 1.3.70+ to
> 2.2.13. I could never understand such a whopping bug was in Linux for so
> long. 2.0.x's OOM handling was prolly worse than NT's.
but how /do/ you handle OOM? you are totally out of memory, you can't
swap out processes cause swap is full, the kernel can't allocate memory
for net packets that are too big for static buffers..
everyone says but OOM doesn't happen to OS xyz, and they might be right,
but how these other OS's do it? do these OS's need lot's of swap for
example? Are these other os's perhaps very very anal about memory? And
are these other OS's perhaps a lot slower than linux?
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!