Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*OOM\s+difference\s+on\s+IRIX\s+vs\.\s+linux\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*OOM\s+difference\s+on\s+IRIX\s+vs\.\s+linux\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. ver oops ..... any ideas. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:14:53 -0700 (MST); I think you mentioned on this list a while ago that XFS comes from an environment (IRIX) where allocating memory could not fail. At least that is what I understood you to say. Since hardware resourc; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00424.html (7,343 bytes)
2. ference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Jan 2002 17:18:27 -0600; Does not fail can also mean does not return for a VERY long time. Plus the memory system on Irix has a mechanism where various subsystems which consume memory can register callouts which the memory s; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00425.html (8,606 bytes)
3. ference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: d@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:01:28 -0800 (PST); Its too bad theres no signal mechanism for userspace for 'memory low', eg SIGLOWMEM so userspace apps could voluntarily release resources to ease memory pressure. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00426.html (8,028 bytes)
4. uction. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:33:42 +0000; begin Dan Hollis quotation: There was a big discussion on LKML about that a few months back. I forget what the outcome was. -- ///////////////// | | The spark of a pin <sneakums@xxxxxxxx> | (require; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00434.html (8,151 bytes)
5. bsdlabel and xfs on alpha (score: 1): Author: ic@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:27:43 +0000 (GMT); Implementation on these things can be crucial. A few years ago I was having trouble with Oracle on an ICL Unix box (though I think the vendor was immateriel). periodically when it tried to get extra; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg00445.html (8,426 bytes)
6. S server oops ..... any ideas. (score: 1): Author: <I.D.Hardy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:14:53 -0700 (MST); I think you mentioned on this list a while ago that XFS comes from an environment (IRIX) where allocating memory could not fail. At least that is what I understood you to say. Since hardware resourc; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01353.html (7,343 bytes)
7. : XFS/NFS server oops ..... any ideas. (score: 1): Author: es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Jan 2002 17:18:27 -0600; Does not fail can also mean does not return for a VERY long time. Plus the memory system on Irix has a mechanism where various subsystems which consume memory can register callouts which the memory s; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01354.html (8,606 bytes)
8. . (score: 1): Author: teve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:01:28 -0800 (PST); Its too bad theres no signal mechanism for userspace for 'memory low', eg SIGLOWMEM so userspace apps could voluntarily release resources to ease memory pressure. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01355.html (8,028 bytes)
9. b and force shutdown (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:33:42 +0000; begin Dan Hollis quotation: There was a big discussion on LKML about that a few months back. I forget what the outcome was. -- ///////////////// | | The spark of a pin <sneakums@xxxxxxxx> | (require; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01363.html (8,151 bytes)
10. ce shutdown (score: 1): Author: <Andrej.Filipcic@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:27:43 +0000 (GMT); Implementation on these things can be crucial. A few years ago I was having trouble with Oracle on an ICL Unix box (though I think the vendor was immateriel). periodically when it tried to get extra; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg01374.html (8,426 bytes)
11. OOM difference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:14:53 -0700 (MST); Steve, I think you mentioned on this list a while ago that XFS comes from an environment (IRIX) where allocating memory could not fail. At least that is what I understood you to say. Since hardware r; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg02282.html (7,343 bytes)
12. Re: OOM difference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Jan 2002 17:18:27 -0600; Does not fail can also mean does not return for a VERY long time. Plus the memory system on Irix has a mechanism where various subsystems which consume memory can register callouts which the memory s; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg02283.html (8,700 bytes)
13. Re: OOM difference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: Dan Hollis <goemon@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:01:28 -0800 (PST); Its too bad theres no signal mechanism for userspace for 'memory low', eg SIGLOWMEM so userspace apps could voluntarily release resources to ease memory pressure. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg02284.html (8,062 bytes)
14. Re: OOM difference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: Sean Neakums <sneakums@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:33:42 +0000; begin Dan Hollis quotation: There was a big discussion on LKML about that a few months back. I forget what the outcome was. -- ///////////////// | | The spark of a pin <sneakums@xxxxxxxx> | (require; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg02292.html (8,247 bytes)
15. Re[2]: OOM difference on IRIX vs. linux (score: 1): Author: Keith Matthews <keith_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:27:43 +0000 (GMT); Implementation on these things can be crucial. A few years ago I was having trouble with Oracle on an ICL Unix box (though I think the vendor was immateriel). periodically when it tried to get extra; /archives/xfs/2002-01/msg02303.html (8,518 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]