Re: Bug#126750: klogd should optionally be started from init(8)
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:56:03PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > are not killed by OOM because of an excemption the system might kill
> > the nfs daemon or the sendmail process. So where do you draw the line?
>
> Good question. I would not bother with anything else other than ssh and
> logging (and the kernel threads, i suppose). And all that just to make them
> harder (not impossible) to get killed by the OOM killer.
Well my preferences would be different. That is just to illustrate that
a more generic way, like a "kill me last if possible" flag or some priority
value would be a more sensible approach.
> BTW, I consider tweaking with the OOM killer a very partial solution, and
> not a very good idea. Something that would restart a process the admin told
> it to (i.e. init, or something like it) is a better solution, as it does not
> touch the kernel, and it will restart services that got ill.
Good. So we are indeed on the same page here. The question remains: is
it worth the effort to tweak the OOM killer? I personally don't think so.
Especially since i am inclined to move to an all-capability based system
where the notion of a super-user does no longer exist. But for a traditional
Unix-like system it might be of benefit in some cases.
Happy New Year!
Dominik Kubla
--
ScioByte GmbH Zum Schiersteiner Grund 2 55127 Mainz (Germany)
Phone: +49 700 724 629 83 Fax: +49 700 724 629 84
1024D/717F16BB A384 F5F1 F566 5716 5485 27EF 3B00 C007 717F 16BB
Reply to: