From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 10 14: 0: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AA115404 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:59:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA01570; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199904102057.NAA01570@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mattias Pantzare Cc: Amancio Hasty , Dmitry Valdov , Brian Feldman , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DoS from local users (fwd) References: <199904102051.WAA07790@zed.ludd.luth.se> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> :> No, it isn't. For a very simple reason: The resources users need to do :> real work are very similar to the resources users need to hog the system. : :That has nothing to do with it. Not for cpu usage. If you have two users that :are using all the CPU they can they ought to get 50% of the CPU each. Even if :one of the users have 1 process and the other have 100 processes. : :Sun has a product for this, Solaris Resource Manager. ... and if one user is *supposed* to be running all those processes, then what? Oh, let me guess: Now you are supposed to tune each user's account independantly. For a system with general user accounts, this is a burden on the sysop. If one can't control one's users, one has no business managing them. The last thing FreeBSD needs is some overly complex, sophisticated scheduler designed to help bozo sysops stay on their feet. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message