Does Ubuntu swap even when there is no swap configured?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my /etc/fstab there is no swap partition.
top displays KiB Swap: 0 total, 0 free, 0 used
and swapon shows nothing.
So it looks like swap is disabled. But when the system runs out of physical memory, it starts behaving like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive, disc access indicator is on all the time; if I manage to close a heavy process (or if it gets killed, probably by an Out-of-Memory killer), the system becomes responsive again.
Does Ubuntu still swap in such a case?
The system is Ubuntu 16.04.
swap
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my /etc/fstab there is no swap partition.
top displays KiB Swap: 0 total, 0 free, 0 used
and swapon shows nothing.
So it looks like swap is disabled. But when the system runs out of physical memory, it starts behaving like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive, disc access indicator is on all the time; if I manage to close a heavy process (or if it gets killed, probably by an Out-of-Memory killer), the system becomes responsive again.
Does Ubuntu still swap in such a case?
The system is Ubuntu 16.04.
swap
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
1
What doesswaponshow? No output means no swap is configured.
– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
2
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
2
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
@PerlDuckswaponshows nothing
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In my /etc/fstab there is no swap partition.
top displays KiB Swap: 0 total, 0 free, 0 used
and swapon shows nothing.
So it looks like swap is disabled. But when the system runs out of physical memory, it starts behaving like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive, disc access indicator is on all the time; if I manage to close a heavy process (or if it gets killed, probably by an Out-of-Memory killer), the system becomes responsive again.
Does Ubuntu still swap in such a case?
The system is Ubuntu 16.04.
swap
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
In my /etc/fstab there is no swap partition.
top displays KiB Swap: 0 total, 0 free, 0 used
and swapon shows nothing.
So it looks like swap is disabled. But when the system runs out of physical memory, it starts behaving like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive, disc access indicator is on all the time; if I manage to close a heavy process (or if it gets killed, probably by an Out-of-Memory killer), the system becomes responsive again.
Does Ubuntu still swap in such a case?
The system is Ubuntu 16.04.
swap
swap
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
edited Apr 16 at 8:57
Zanna
48k13119228
48k13119228
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
asked Apr 13 at 18:44
Roman Puchkovskiy
1195
1195
1
What doesswaponshow? No output means no swap is configured.
– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
2
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
2
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
@PerlDuckswaponshows nothing
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
What doesswaponshow? No output means no swap is configured.
– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
2
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
2
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
@PerlDuckswaponshows nothing
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59
1
1
What does
swapon show? No output means no swap is configured.– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
What does
swapon show? No output means no swap is configured.– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
2
2
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
2
2
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
@PerlDuck
swapon shows nothing– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@PerlDuck
swapon shows nothing– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The short answer:
If there is no swap, Ubuntu will not swap.
The long answer:
What happens is that the Linux kernel memory manager (not really Ubuntu itself) will first try to consolidate memory into chunks it can allocate to the applications requesting said memory (the slowdown you're seeing) and if it cannot, these applications will crash, thus freeing up their memory for the more well-behaved applications that did not crash.
The Kernel's OOM Killer¹ is only invoked if and only if there is no other way of doing so² and looking at your high disk usage, you're running into the too small to fail memory allocation rule. The relevant section states:
In other words, the allocating process cannot proceed because it is waiting for its allocation call to return. That call cannot return until memory is freed, which requires the victim process to exit. The OOM killer will also wait for the victim to exit before (possibly) choosing a second process to kill.
The rant:
Back when I was a kid and the only qualification you needed to start in the IT industry was the ability to read manuals and 32K was the norm and 64K was "wow", we used to check every memory allocation and display "Out of memory" when we couldn't allocate memory at an application level, which today's kids programmers don't do any more as they're spoilt rotten with multiple monitors, huge SSDs and systems that are generally better than the systems their software actually runs on they are not used to having systems run out of memory any more...
;-)
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The short answer:
If there is no swap, Ubuntu will not swap.
The long answer:
What happens is that the Linux kernel memory manager (not really Ubuntu itself) will first try to consolidate memory into chunks it can allocate to the applications requesting said memory (the slowdown you're seeing) and if it cannot, these applications will crash, thus freeing up their memory for the more well-behaved applications that did not crash.
The Kernel's OOM Killer¹ is only invoked if and only if there is no other way of doing so² and looking at your high disk usage, you're running into the too small to fail memory allocation rule. The relevant section states:
In other words, the allocating process cannot proceed because it is waiting for its allocation call to return. That call cannot return until memory is freed, which requires the victim process to exit. The OOM killer will also wait for the victim to exit before (possibly) choosing a second process to kill.
The rant:
Back when I was a kid and the only qualification you needed to start in the IT industry was the ability to read manuals and 32K was the norm and 64K was "wow", we used to check every memory allocation and display "Out of memory" when we couldn't allocate memory at an application level, which today's kids programmers don't do any more as they're spoilt rotten with multiple monitors, huge SSDs and systems that are generally better than the systems their software actually runs on they are not used to having systems run out of memory any more...
;-)
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The short answer:
If there is no swap, Ubuntu will not swap.
The long answer:
What happens is that the Linux kernel memory manager (not really Ubuntu itself) will first try to consolidate memory into chunks it can allocate to the applications requesting said memory (the slowdown you're seeing) and if it cannot, these applications will crash, thus freeing up their memory for the more well-behaved applications that did not crash.
The Kernel's OOM Killer¹ is only invoked if and only if there is no other way of doing so² and looking at your high disk usage, you're running into the too small to fail memory allocation rule. The relevant section states:
In other words, the allocating process cannot proceed because it is waiting for its allocation call to return. That call cannot return until memory is freed, which requires the victim process to exit. The OOM killer will also wait for the victim to exit before (possibly) choosing a second process to kill.
The rant:
Back when I was a kid and the only qualification you needed to start in the IT industry was the ability to read manuals and 32K was the norm and 64K was "wow", we used to check every memory allocation and display "Out of memory" when we couldn't allocate memory at an application level, which today's kids programmers don't do any more as they're spoilt rotten with multiple monitors, huge SSDs and systems that are generally better than the systems their software actually runs on they are not used to having systems run out of memory any more...
;-)
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
The short answer:
If there is no swap, Ubuntu will not swap.
The long answer:
What happens is that the Linux kernel memory manager (not really Ubuntu itself) will first try to consolidate memory into chunks it can allocate to the applications requesting said memory (the slowdown you're seeing) and if it cannot, these applications will crash, thus freeing up their memory for the more well-behaved applications that did not crash.
The Kernel's OOM Killer¹ is only invoked if and only if there is no other way of doing so² and looking at your high disk usage, you're running into the too small to fail memory allocation rule. The relevant section states:
In other words, the allocating process cannot proceed because it is waiting for its allocation call to return. That call cannot return until memory is freed, which requires the victim process to exit. The OOM killer will also wait for the victim to exit before (possibly) choosing a second process to kill.
The rant:
Back when I was a kid and the only qualification you needed to start in the IT industry was the ability to read manuals and 32K was the norm and 64K was "wow", we used to check every memory allocation and display "Out of memory" when we couldn't allocate memory at an application level, which today's kids programmers don't do any more as they're spoilt rotten with multiple monitors, huge SSDs and systems that are generally better than the systems their software actually runs on they are not used to having systems run out of memory any more...
;-)
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
The short answer:
If there is no swap, Ubuntu will not swap.
The long answer:
What happens is that the Linux kernel memory manager (not really Ubuntu itself) will first try to consolidate memory into chunks it can allocate to the applications requesting said memory (the slowdown you're seeing) and if it cannot, these applications will crash, thus freeing up their memory for the more well-behaved applications that did not crash.
The Kernel's OOM Killer¹ is only invoked if and only if there is no other way of doing so² and looking at your high disk usage, you're running into the too small to fail memory allocation rule. The relevant section states:
In other words, the allocating process cannot proceed because it is waiting for its allocation call to return. That call cannot return until memory is freed, which requires the victim process to exit. The OOM killer will also wait for the victim to exit before (possibly) choosing a second process to kill.
The rant:
Back when I was a kid and the only qualification you needed to start in the IT industry was the ability to read manuals and 32K was the norm and 64K was "wow", we used to check every memory allocation and display "Out of memory" when we couldn't allocate memory at an application level, which today's kids programmers don't do any more as they're spoilt rotten with multiple monitors, huge SSDs and systems that are generally better than the systems their software actually runs on they are not used to having systems run out of memory any more...
;-)
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
edited Apr 20 at 6:47
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
answered Apr 13 at 23:43
Fabby
24.3k1352153
24.3k1352153
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
1
1
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
+1 for the details in the long answer and the rant :-)
– sudodus
Apr 14 at 5:03
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
Thank you for the point about memory compaction. The ever-shining disk access LED still remains a mystery for me, but I guess I have to create another question about it :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 14 at 10:26
1
1
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
Why do you claim OOM Killers don't exist? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_memory / unix.stackexchange.com/q/136291/103151 / unix.stackexchange.com/q/153585/103151
– Byte Commander
Apr 14 at 19:21
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
RomanPuchkovskiy Disk light is very probably the invocation of the OOM killer (which doesn't get invoked often, so resides on disk). after reading @ByteCommander 's docs. Mystery solved!
– Fabby
Apr 20 at 6:53
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
@Fabby that was interesting, thank you :)
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 26 at 17:26
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1024755%2fdoes-ubuntu-swap-even-when-there-is-no-swap-configured%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
What does
swaponshow? No output means no swap is configured.– PerlDuck
Apr 13 at 18:48
2
"like it's swapping: the system becomes nearly unresponsive" sorry how is that "like swapping". That's your system running with not enough memory to do what needs to be done. "Swap" would mean it drops memory into swap where it decides it has not been used for a while and it is deemed more efficient to clear some memory for new tasks.
– Rinzwind
Apr 13 at 18:49
2
+1, the system runs out of RAM.
– mikewhatever
Apr 13 at 19:23
@PerlDuck
swaponshows nothing– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:52
@mikewhatever I'm probably misunderstanding something. When a system runs out of RAM, shouldn't it result in OOM killer killing a process, or some process crashing due to an unsuccessful attempt to allocate memory? Both of these would bring relief, but this does not happen every time. I do have some JVMs that may put all their CPU resources in garbage collection, but it should not freeze the system, I guess. Once again, I am probably misunderstanding something; could you please elaborate?
– Roman Puchkovskiy
Apr 13 at 19:59