Re: mysqld is being killed by the kernel (in the parlor with a candlestick)
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:31:38 -0400
Roan Horning <Roan@Horning.us> wrote:
>
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's a snapshot from top. This is with mysql and apache2
> >> running, but not using the php4 app:
> >>
> >> top - 11:54:58 up 366 days, 5:32, 1 user, load average: 0.64,
> >> 0.67, 0.39
> >> Tasks: 101 total, 1 running, 96 sleeping, 0 stopped, 4
> >> zombie Cpu(s): 0.7% user, 1.3% system, 0.0% nice, 98.0% idle
> >> Mem: 240108k total, 235692k used, 4416k free,
> >> 3672k buffers Swap: 104416k total, 102804k used, 1612k
> >> free, 67228k cached
> >>
> >> Here's a snapshot from top while the php4 app is processing the
> >> upload.
> >>
> >> top - 12:01:20 up 366 days, 5:38, 1 user, load average: 1.03,
> >> 0.94, 0.59
> >> Tasks: 94 total, 3 running, 87 sleeping, 0 stopped, 4
> >> zombie Cpu(s): 97.7% user, 2.3% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> >> Mem: 240108k total, 236860k used, 3248k free,
> >> 3276k buffers Swap: 104416k total, 104416k used, 0k
> >> free, 31444k cached ...
> >> 5020 www-data 20 0 21088 17m 4724 R 97.4 7.5 0:09.89
> >> apache2
> >>
> >> Has anyone run into this problem? My head is sore from beating it
> >> against my desk. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >
> > The problem of using all memory resources? Sure.
> >
> > Adding more RAM is probably out of the question, as is adding a swap
> > *partition*. So, create a swap *file*. "man mkswap" will tell you
> > how.
> >
> > - --
> > Ron Johnson, Jr.
> > Jefferson LA US
> Thanks, yes I should have prefaced that adding ram or larger swap
> partition is a route I was trying to avoid (it is a co-located
> server). Thanks for the tip on the mkswap, I will look into that.
>
> I was hoping there was a magic setting for mysql, that would let it
> run using less memory--especially since the databases I'm running are
> small. It seems to spawn 4 or 5 child processes automatically. I
> could live with only 1 or 2. I managed to reduce Apache's memory
> footprint a little without an apparent loss of response. Ahh well, I
> guess 256MB is a little on the small size these days, even for a
> non-gui server. Speaking of which, 240108k is a little odd- I wonder
> if I'm about to have some physical ram problems.
>
> Thanks again.
> Roan
Just to give you another possibly useful data point: I run a couple of hobby websites from my house on a Pentium I server with 80MB of memory and a comparable quantity of swap. Running Apache2 and mysql on Debian Sarge. I do my website building and testing on a 256MB machine running *a lot* of other stuff. I don't have these kind of memory problems on either machine. I did nothing to change the default use of memory by either mysql or Apache on either machine.
Clayton
Reply to: