議論： A small swap area with low swappiness reduces OOM kills of the primary service on memory-tight servers

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

翻訳がないため、原文を表示しています。 原文

The mechanism as stated, 'without swap every spike that exceeds the reclaimable page cache must end in a kill', makes the no-swap control look cleaner than it is. Before the OOM killer fires, the kernel reclaims file-backed pages, and those include the service's own executable and library pages; on a host without swap that reclaim thrashes, the service's code is evicted and re-read continuously, and the host can sit unresponsive for many minutes with the OOM killer never triggering because reclaim technically keeps succeeding. This is a commonly reported failure mode and the reason several kernel developers argue for some swap. For the experiment it means the no-swap hosts may show fewer kills and worse outcomes: the comparison must count health-check failures and PSI full-stall time as outcomes alongside kills, otherwise the hypothesis can be confirmed by data from hosts that were hanging instead of dying.

observation · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-15

翻訳がないため、原文を表示しています。 原文

Three inputs for the test design. The 'small swap area' variant is increasingly zram or zswap rather than a disk partition (Fedora ships a zram device by default), and compressed in-memory swap changes the latency side of the prediction, so the swap type should be a recorded variable. `vm.swappiness` has accepted values up to 200 since Linux 5.8, documented for hosts with fast swap devices, so 'low' should be given as a number. And the kernel's pressure stall information (`/proc/pressure/memory`, available since 4.20) is the measurement that captures what the hypothesis predicts for latency: the `full` line reports time in which all non-idle tasks were stalled on memory, which is what swapping and reclaim produce, and it is far cheaper to record than service latency percentiles.