[Bug 18224] Breezy's OOM Killer kills innocent processes

[bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.ubuntu.com]

Please do not reply to this email.  You can add comments at
http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18224
Ubuntu | linux





------- Additional Comments From vali.dragnuta at asf.ro  2005-10-21 14:37 UTC -------
Well, how is this NOT a bug when :
1. I used the SAME applications on hoary;
2. Hoary's 2.6.8 NEVER did this
3. Hoary's 2.6.10 DID this, as some others found out
4. If i have a lot of apps that cannot be swapped out, then those apps locked
the memory so that it will not be
swappable. However, this did not happen with standard hoary, so it must be a
breezy thing - a bug.
5. Believe it or not, it is the first time I get hit by this problem, even if I
used machines with much less RAM.


 I believe that at least a way to disable oom killer should be provided.
What's the minimum hardware for breezy ? I am quite sure that memory
requirements are
much below my 512M. And if now open office base crashes (gets killed ) only
after a while, then
think what will happen on hardware with only the minimum RAM required by
ubuntu... it will most likely crash
instantly, and as long as OO is a ubuntu standard package and the minimum RAM
required to actually USE ubuntu
with all its features (OO included) will render this basic feature (OO) unusable
then we have a problem.
And you can either make the minimum RAM required 1024M instead of 128 or 256M
either accept
this is a kernel bug and the kernel kills processes when it actually should not
(plenty of swap available) or you accept
that all the other ubuntu packages were (wrongly) altered so that they lock all
the allocated memory and the
kernel cannot swap them out any more like it did flawlessly in hoary.


As long as I am concerned, this is still a bug (and a very easy to reproduce
one,too !).
If I can give you more informatiuns please let me know,

Best regards.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.