From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 10 20:38: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [209.249.129.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7813014CC1 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:38:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA10870; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:35:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com) Message-Id: <199904110335.UAA10870@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Dmitry Valdov , Brian Feldman , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DoS from local users (fwd) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:37:06 PDT." <199904102037.NAA01262@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:35:37 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I guess any sufficiently advance science is indeed consider magic by some. Amancio > > : > :It should be possible to prevent a user from hogging a system if the system's > :naive scheduler is improved. > : > : Amancio > > 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. > > Saying that the system should somehow be able to magically make the > distinction between the two is a pipedream. It takes a human to make > the distinction. > > Short of restricting the resources you give to users to the point where > they can't even start a mail or news client, there is just no way to > prevent said users from loading down the machine if they choose to. > > -Matt > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message