From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from falcon.inetnebr.com (root@falcon.inetnebr.com [199.184.119.1]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA21865 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:54:32 -0400 Received: from flinx.npwt.net (inetnebr@oma-pm1-010.inetnebr.com [206.222.220.54]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA20052 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:53:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: memory use in Linux References: <3.0.3.32.19980820223733.006b4b5c@valemount.com> From: ebiederm@inetnebr.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 21 Aug 1998 18:48:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: Lonnie Nunweiler's message of Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:37:33 -0700 Message-ID: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: lonnie@valemount.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> "LN" == Lonnie Nunweiler writes: LN> I am researching why Linux runs into memory problems. We recently had to LN> convert our dialin server, email and web server to NT, because the Linux LN> machine would eventually eat up all ram, and then crash. We were using LN> 128MB machines, and it would take about 3 days before rebooting was LN> required. If we didn't reboot soon enough, it was a very messy job LN> rebuilding some of the chewed files. Instead of running into generalities probably the best place to start is to ask why linux ran into problems in your case. Which kernel were you running? What were the specifics that killed your machine? Did it look like a kernel memory where more and more memory is eaten, your machine begins to swap harder, and harder until death. Or was it a user space program that leaked memory, and linux wasn't able to cope with runing out of swap? The cache in general is designed so anything it caches may be reclaimed when needed. I think you are barking up the wrong tree so please take it slow so the real culprit can be found. Eric -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org