Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:01:36 +0200 From: Bjoern Fischer <bfischer@Techfak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: efficiency of maxproc hardlimit Message-ID: <20000412080136.A239@frolic.no-support.loc> In-Reply-To: <20000411100950.E4381@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:09:50AM -0700 References: <20000410094436.A778@frolic.no-support.loc> <20000410013139.R4381@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000411125643.A282@frolic.no-support.loc> <20000411100950.E4381@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:09:50AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: [...] > It's also silly. If you've found limits that "work" then why insist > on giving your users enough rope to hang you? The world is complicated. Some of my processes need that stacksize. There is no problem setting safe limits for all other users or denying access to my machine completely but for myself (this is the case now). > Either enforce proper limits or rmuser. Of course. But the users behave quite well, so no real complaints. > If you could get a traceback of the stuck client, that would be > helpful. Ok, I'm working on that but it may take some time. Some long run processes started yesterday may need a few days and I don't want to disturb them. btw. don't the BSDI guys have a mechanism for stopping a running process storing the image somewhere in swap space and continue after a reboot? Would be quite handy right now. Thank you for your suggestions. Bj=F6rn --=20 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS d--(+) s++: a- C+++(-) UB++++OSI++++$ P+++(-) L---(++) !E W- N+ o>+ K- !w !O !M !V PS++ PE- PGP++ t+++ !5 X++ tv- b+++ D++ G e+ h-- y+=20 ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000412080136.A239>