Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • 2
    There is already a algorithm described in this article which helps the OOM killer to choose the correct process. Changing /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory affects the kernel behaviour on low memory. Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 13:00
  • 1
    Yes, but the overcommit_memory special file uses RAM+SWAP as usable memory. I'm still gonna swap :) Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 13:03
  • 1
    You also need to explain how this is not a duplicate of this: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/34334/… which contradicts you WRT cgroups and individual users. PS. If you don't want to swap, disable swap. Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 13:05
  • 1
    I want swap! I want hibernation, I want unused bytes to be stored away! But I don't want used bytes to be stored there. About the link, ulimits are a bad idea as shown almost everywhere since it is a per process limitation... I fork you know :) About cgroups, this is definitely better but lacks something more general: I'm talking about my laptop but I also own a "calculation" server that we are three to share. If I enforce such per user limits, I'll be limited by the worst case scenario, won't I? Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 13:19
  • 1
    cgroups do apply to whatever process you decide- put all processes of a user into a separate group and it should do what you want. Commented Feb 12, 2013 at 13:56