From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54FA21FF168 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2025 16:39:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F0425807C; Sun, 13 Jul 2025 16:40:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Marco Gaiarin Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 16:28:35 +0200 Organization: Il gaio usa sempre TIN per le liste, fallo anche tu!!! Message-ID: References: X-Trace: eraldo.lilliput.linux.it 1752416942 2591772 192.168.1.45 (13 Jul 2025 14:29:02 GMT) To: dorsy via pve-user X-Mailer: tin/2.6.4-20240224 ("Banff") (Linux/6.11.0-29-generic (x86_64)) X-Gateway-System: SmartGate 1.4.5 Cc: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com In-Reply-To: ; from SmartGate on Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 16:36:01PM +0200 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.337 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [PVE-User] A less aggressive OOM? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE user list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-user-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-user" Mandi! dorsy via pve-user In chel di` si favelave... Thanks to all, particulary to Victor for the wonderful analisys, that lead me to learn a bit better OOM dump... >> if OOM kicks in because half of the ram is being used for >> caches/buffers, i would blame OOMkiller or ZFS for tha. The problem >> should be resolved at zfs or memory management level. > Absolutely no! > You are responsible for giving ZFS the limits. As even described in the > proxmox documentation here: > https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/ZFS_on_Linux#sysadmin_zfs_limit_memory_usage I'm a bit in the side of Roland on this. ARC is a (indeed, complex) buffer/cache, so seems reasonably that, if i need to sacrifice something, it is better to sacrifice cache than VM. Aniway, if i understood well, default ZFS was to have ARC at 50% of the RAM; after PVE 8.1, PVE modify the default to 10% (for new installation); there's also a 'rule of thumb' to setup ARC, so 10% is somewhat a 'starting point'. In some server i can setup easily swap (i have a disk for an L2ARC, so i can simply detach, partition a bit and reattach as L2ARC and swap). Clearly, i'll set swappiness at 1, to be used only when strictly needed. Thanks to all! -- _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list pve-user@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user