Re: "failed to reclaim memory" with much free physmem

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 8:42 AM Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> wrote:
>
> <<On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:23:34 -0700, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> said:
>
> [I wrote:]
> >> https://bimajority.org/%7Ewollman/memory-pinpoint%3D1756957462%2C1757648662.png
> >>
> >> shows the memory utilization over the course of the past week
> >> including the incident on Tuesday morning. I don't know why there's
> >> 25G of inactive pages for three days leading up to the OOM; perhaps
> >> that's related? Inactive is normally much less than 1G.
>
> > Is the growth to huge wired figures like 932.89G something
> > new --or has such been historically normal?
>
> Totally normal, that's the ARC warming up with client activity.
> Typical machine learning datasets these days are on the order of a
> terabyte, so they won't entirely fit in memory.  (These systems also
> have 2 TB of L2ARC but that gets discarded on reboot, so obviously
> we'd like to avoid reboots.)
Ok, but don't we want something that prevents the arc from taking all
the memory? (It seems like 932Gbytes should be close to a hard
upper bound for a system with 1Tbyte of ram?)

rick

>
> -GAWollman
>
>