Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have a rather old Linux machine with 2GB of ram, no swap, and it's working very well, with the system using every unused piece of memory for caching with great effect.

However, when I'm close to stressing out memory (e.g., >1950MB allocated), it slows to a crawl; I suspect that's because there are no disk buffers left. I know that the OOM killer would soon go into effect, but it doesn't usually get there -- it's becoming so slow that loads shoots to 30-40, no process makes any progress (thus doesn't allocate more memory), and I have to restart it.

When I try to just kill one process to get the machine to respond, e.g. by going to the console (via Alt-F1, logging in, and just doing a "killall badprocess"), it usually works, except that I have to wait ~10 minutes between user/password and getting a prompt -- all while there is disk activity.

Again, there's no swap, so it isn't swapping -- it's just thrashing because it has no buffers left.

I would much have 100MB or so dedicated exclusively to disk buffers, which would trigger the OOM killer earlier (less memory for programs, after all) but on the other hand would leave the machine responsive at all times.

Is there a way to do that? I haven't been able to find a /proc/kernel or /sys/vm entry that does this kind of thing.

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
I also have the same problem, and unfortunately none of the answers to this date help in this matter. –  Krišjānis Nesenbergs May 11 '11 at 7:18
add comment

2 Answers

Have a look at /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes. It's the limit of free kbytes that triggers the oom-killer. Also it would be good to check at the logs for the keyword oom-killer in order to know what is being killed {propably you don't want to kill ssh, you it's better to renice it}

share|improve this answer
Thanks. I enlarged it, but that doesn't seem to solve the problem -- once physical memory was close to exhaustion, there was no buffer memory left, and the machine slowed to a crawl. –  No One Aug 18 '10 at 3:51
No help here either, system still goes completely unresponsive. –  Tronic Nov 23 '10 at 11:47
This actually helped me, I also have 2GB ram and I set this to almost 500MB - for now no slowdowns/hangups –  Krišjānis Nesenbergs May 24 '11 at 22:25
add comment

Waiting for the oom-killer to free up memory is a bit like waiting for the engine to stop on your car to tell you when it's time to fill up your gas tank. The oom-killer is a heavy-handed tool of a last resort and desperation for a resource-starved machine. It kills the next program it touches with no consideration for how this will affect your application, reachability, reliability, and so forth. When the oom-killer is invoked, your server is gasping for breath and in critical condition.

Instead, you're much better off taking an active approach at managing your memory usage within your application environment. You can monitor /proc/meminfo for trouble and take appropriate action and throttle back on your workload before a serious situation gets ugly.

share|improve this answer
The situation I discovered is exactly the time at which my server is gasping for breath and in critical condition. It takes less than 20 seconds from a fully responsive machine to taking 1 minute to respond to Ctrl-Alt-F1 (switch from X to console). And log-in is impossible because it times out after 1 minute without even asking for a password. This is a machine that has many processes running; each one is independently NOT the problem. Also, this is strictly a memory issue -- CPU is fine, and disk is fine as long as there's about 50MB of disk buffers left. –  No One Aug 18 '10 at 3:50
what if you use ulimit and if an application uses over a threshold to take an action ? –  Nikolaidis Fotis Aug 18 '10 at 9:45
The problem is the sum of all applications; 20 or so are running, each with 20-100 MB allocated. It works fine for weeks, even months, but when they all want to have ~100MB allocated at the same time, everything crashes and burns; I'd rather have oom_killer kill one of them than myself having to reboot the machine. Anyway, I've turned on swap for now -- most apps don't use all their memory all the time, so the machine remains stable even when stressed to the end of physical memory; however, I would rather have no swap at all for this machine, if I can. –  No One Aug 19 '10 at 16:36
Does not solve the actual problem which is a combination of not being to set proper memory usage limits (ulimits are not very useful), applications easily going havoc with memory allocations, the OOM killer failing to fire early enough and the massive disk trashing and unresponsiveness caused by all that. I just wasted 30 minutes of my employer's time because the development machine would trash the disk for half an hour while compiling my code, instead of simply killing the Chromium processes it needed to kill (or the compile itself) in less than a second and then be done with it. –  Tronic Nov 23 '10 at 10:38
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.