Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:33:45 +0200 From: Walter Hop <walter@binity.com> To: "Bill Moran" <wmoran@iowna.com> Cc: "FreeBSD Questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re[4]: How to keep a process from eating >n percent CPU? Message-ID: <1148490305.20010610023345@binity.com> In-Reply-To: <000201c0f14d$c089b540$ad9b5d3f@y0k8x9> References: <200106091245.AA1833238794@stmail.pace.edu> <14122019722.20010609191234@binity.com> <000201c0f14d$c089b540$ad9b5d3f@y0k8x9>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[in reply to wmoran@iowna.com, 09-06-2001] >> As a matter of fact I am now using nice(1), I only wished there would be >> a means of controlling this in a more "fine-grained" method. For one, I >> would love it if I could impose a limit of 90% CPU on Apache, so that if >> for example a runaway CGI script started doing weird things, admins >> would still have a (greater) possibility to be able to log on the shell >> and fix stuff in a proper fashion (i.e. not waiting 30 seconds for the >> output of `ps' to appear). > > That's pretty odd. What are you nicing it to? Only 1 lower for now :) I'm a little afraid of downgrading Apache's performance while giving priority to non-interactive processes. At second thought, it might be a nice idea to maybe give sshd2 a slight negative nice value at startup to keep it responsive at hard times (and giving users a login shell which renices it to normal)... -- Walter Hop <walter@binity.com> | +31 6 24290808 | Finger for public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1148490305.20010610023345>