Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 23:12:08 +0200 From: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DoS from local users (fwd) Message-ID: <199904102112.XAA08294@zed.ludd.luth.se> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:57:32 PDT." <199904102057.NAA01570@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :That has nothing to do with it. Not for cpu usage. If you have two use= rs 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 p= rocesses. > : > :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. ? Then that user continue to run all those processes, but won't take a bi= gger = share of the resources than any other user. This is not diffrent from one= = process not using all the CPU when there are other processes that need CP= U. > If one can't control one's users, one has no business managing them= . The > last thing FreeBSD needs is some overly complex, sophisticated sche= duler > designed to help bozo sysops stay on their feet. You can't manage users today as you don't have anyting good to control th= em = with. We have that for processes, so you can manage processes. This helps for runaway daemons and things like that to. (The Web server g= ets = 75% and the rest to the sql server for example). Is it worth the trouble to implement? Maybe not. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904102112.XAA08294>