 | | | -none- | -none- 2007-08-20 - By Cristian Silva
Back
64bits is not an option cause we have some applications (homemade) that are
not 64bits compatible, there's a chance to migrate them to 64 but nothing
in the short term.
I configured the kernel to use less memory now, so ill see how it goes and
ill post my results.
cheers,
C
On 8/20/07, Eric Sisler <esisler@(protected)> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 12:06 -0400, Cristian Silva wrote:
>
> > Sorry, forgot to mention that we are getting the oom-killer with another
> > application, we are not using VMware.
>
> The actual application is pretty much irrelevant once the oom-killer is
> involved.
>
> > The total low memory reported by the PAE and the normal kernel are the
> same
> >
> > PAE
> > # free -lm
> > total used free shared buffers
> cached
> > Mem: 7994 348 7646 0
> 70 179
> > Low: 827 102 724
> > High: 7167 245 6922
> > -/+ buffers/cache: 98 7896
> > Swap: 4094 0 4094
> > #
> >
> >
> > Normal
> > # free -lm
> > total used free shared buffers
> cached
> > Mem: 3930 309 3621 0
> 17 196
> > Low: 859 47 811
> > High: 3071 261 2810
> > -/+ buffers/cache: 95 3835
> > Swap: 4094 0 4094
> > #
> >
> > Both commands were executed just after a reboot of the system and it's
> > interesting to see that the used low memory in the PAE kernel is the
> double
> > of the used low memory in a "normal" kernel
>
> There's also slightly less low memory when running PAE, but obviously
> way more high memory since the regular kernel is limited to 4Gb. My
> understanding is that the PAE kernel *should* be roughly equivalent to
> the RHEL4 hugemem kernel, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the
> case. Per my earlier post, low memory on a box running RHEL4 jumped
> significantly when running the hugemem kernel. I wonder why this isn't
> the case when using the RHEL5 PAE kernel? Unfortunately I don't have
> any speare hardware to experiment with at the moment.
>
> > We already tried the parameters that Ray suggested and they didnt make
> any
> > difference.
> >
> > vm.lower_zone_protection is not available in the rhel5, so we are going
> to
> > try with less memory and see what it happens.
> >
> > Thanks all for the information/suggestions, this thread has been
> excellent.
>
> You mentioned 64-bit wasn't an option at the moment...any chance it migh
> be? When I installed 64-bit RHEL4, it also installed the 32-bit
> versions of many packages and thus far I haven't had any issues.
>
> -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
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
|
|
|