From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 16 11:58:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from smtp017.mail.yahoo.com (smtp017.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.114]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AFBC37B42C for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 11:58:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsdq@yahoo.com) Received: from h2.impactidealsolutions.com (HELO support10) (216.98.200.91) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 May 2001 18:58:25 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-Id: Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:01:57 -0600 X-Priority: 3 From: Peter X-Mailer: Mail Warrior To: michael.schuster@sun.com, "questions@FreeBSD.ORG" , "questions@FreeBSD.ORG" , "arch@FreeBSD.ORG" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: python fork call raised my load over 400! Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Mailer-Version: v3.57 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG . . . .|> Still a user process probably shouldn't be able to hose the whole system . . . .|> IMHO. . . . .| . . . .|sorry, that's the way Unix's fair-share scheduler works. Isn't that what user limits are for? man login.conf [I think -- Never could get it to work properly, but then again I'm the only one using my system]. On 05/16/2001 7:04:11 AM, Michael Schuster is quoted as saying: . . . .|dave wrote: . . . .|> . . . .|> If you have a block of free time today check this out! . . . .|> . . . .|> I keyed this in interactively with Python . . . .|> ----SNIP-------- . . . .|> . . . .|> import os . . . .|> . . . .|> while 1: . . . .|> os.fork() . . . .|> -----SNIP------- . . . .| . . . .|this is a classical fork bomb, and the system behaved very much as . . . .|designed. If you're using this to compare Linux to FreeBSD, you'd better . . . .|reconsider and get yourself proper benchmarks. . . . .| . . . .|btw: pls. don't cross-post, questions is quite enough. . . . .| . . . .| . . . .|> This user run program brought my system to a load of 419 with the system . . . .|> using . . . .|> 94% of the resources and 500 user processes on my AMD Duron 800 box with . . . .|> 256MB RAM... . . . .| . . . .|of course: every new process needs resources, and as new processes get more . . . .|CPU share than older ones, the newly forked processes would immediately . . . .|fork again. . . . .| . . . .|> I don't know that the processor/RAM is relevant but I could not fork . . . .|> anymore! . . . .| . . . .|of course you couldn't, you completely filled up your machine are were . . . .|still doing so - getting a word in egdeways was impossible. . . . .| . . . .|> My ultimate question is ... should I be comparing FreeBSD to Linux? . . . .|> Does it really matter if Linux is performing better or worse than FreeBSD? . . . .| . . . .|see above - this about the worst type of "benchmark" I've ever seen. . . . .| . . . .|> Still a user process probably shouldn't be able to hose the whole system . . . .|> IMHO. . . . .| . . . .|sorry, that's the way Unix's fair-share scheduler works. . . . .| . . . .|for more details, look into "Design and Implementation of 4.4 BSD" . . . .| . . . .|HTH . . . .|Michael . . . .|-- . . . .|Michael Schuster / Michael.Schuster@sun.com . . . .|Sun Microsystems GmbH / (+49 89) 46008-2974 | x62974 . . . .|Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten . . . .| . . . .|Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion' . . . .| . . . .|To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org . . . .|with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message www.nul.cjb.net www.FreeBSD.org _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message