 | | | "Out of Memory: Killed process " errors on server running Oracle or VMware | "Out of Memory: Killed process " errors on server running Oracle or VMware 2007-07-25 - By Eric Sisler
Back
Hi Tom,
> Google is certainly your friend here, but you can install the kernel-doc
> package and the find the information
> in /usr/share/doc/kernel-doc-2 (See http://doc-2.ora-code.com).6.9/Documentation/sysctl
Will do.
> BTW, it's seems likely to me that your configuration is suspect,
> especially if you are using the default VMware server configuration. By
> default VMware Server locks most of the memory for the virtual machines
> so that the bulk of the VM will stay in memory. It does this for
> performance since locked memory cannot be swapped.
>
> So let's take a look at your config, you have an 8GB machine and 10.5GB
> of VM's to start. Now you state that this overloads the physical system
> by 2.5GB, but actually, you seem to forget that the OS needs some and
> VMware application needs some memory too, so it's far more likely that
> your overloading the system by 3GB or more.
Well yes, I was talking about the potential for overload from just the
VM standpoint, not VMs + the OS. My test server also isn't anything I
would configure for the real-world. I intentionally increased the RAM
on the VMs to try and trigger an oom-kill or system halt. Normally this
particular server would have VMs configured for ~5Gb.
> You can change the memory locking behavior of VMware Server slightly by
> setting the memory host parameters from "Allow some virtual memory to be
> swapped" to "Allow most virtual memory to be swapped". Oversubscribing
> memory and trying to combine that with locking the memory in place is a
> very dangerous combo and may never be as stable as you would like.
On a production server I wouldn't have any reason to set VMware to
"allow most...". Assuming a production server with a reasonable number
of VMs for the available RAM, are there any dangers to using the
lower_zone_protection option you can think of or have experienced?
> > Gene: If you haven't tried adjusting lower_zone_protection, I would
> > recommend doing so.
> I think Gene's problem was on RHEL3. I don't think RHEL3 even has this
> tunable, and it's likely that his problem is actually different,
> although perhaps similar. I had meant to suggest that we move your
> thread to the RHEL4 list earlier.
Looking back, I see it was - sorry. I didn't check my RHEL 3 box to see
if it has this option.
-Eric
--
Eric Sisler <esisler@(protected)>
Library Network Specialist
Westminster Public Library
Westminster, CO USA
Linux - Don't fear the Penguin.
Want to know what we use Linux for?
Visit http://wallace.westminster.lib.co.us/linux
--
Taroon-list mailing list
Taroon-list@(protected)
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
|
|
|