Okay. Thanks for the note. We appreciate your sharing information on
this alias for other community members' benefit.
Let us know what your investigations uncover.
Cheers
Shreedhar
glassfish_at_javadesktop.org wrote:
>> Very useful to know about this possibility and glad you have a better
>> idea about the root cause. Thank you very much for sharing this information.
>>
>> May I suggest, you contribute this as a FAQ entry in a suitable spot here ?
>> http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=GlassFish
>>
>
> It does not qualify as a "FAQ" strictly speaking :o) and I'm too new to Glassfish to know to which extent the problem is generic (or specific to some weird configuration of my OS).
>
> Moreover, I'm afraid the investigations has not lead us to a full understanding yet. OK the oom-killer kills glassfish processes, but why?
>
> We devised a Java memory-gobbler test utility which continually allocates memory, and we witnessed its memory grow the full memory size then use the full virtual memory and swap. The oom-killer kicked in only when the whole virtual memory neared exhaustion.
>
> Contrast this with our glassfish cluster: the oom-killer kills the DAS and a node whereas there's still much memory left (and no swapping at all).
>
> The info I found on the Web (and yes, the link you posted is about this subject), also tell that the oom-killer may be triggered as soon as the so-called "LOW" memory fills up, event though there's plenty of free room in the "HIGH" memory.
> We have not prooved yet, whether glassfish would consume LOW memory faster than our memory gobbler...
>
> Subject still under investigations so far.
> [Message sent by forum member 'jduprez' (jduprez)]
>
> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=348737
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>
>