On Tue, 08 Aug 2017, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Adam Borowski - 08.08.17, 18:57: > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:53:56AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > > Be careful recommending cgroups. > > > > > > I've never used them, and know little about them, but I know they were > > > one of the main excuses for systemd. > > > > Uhm, what? Systemd uses ELF objects too, should we go with a.out for this > > reason? > > > > cgroups are a way to say "this group of processes may not use more than 2GB > > memory". How else would you ensure a misbehaving set of daemons / container > > /etc does not bring down the rest of the system with it? > > I agree that cgroups can be a useful feature. Yet… also a bit clumsy to use, > and not free of race conditions. That written, kernel developers are working > to fix part of the clumsyness and completely and all of the race conditions > by > unifying all cgroup controllers (memory, cpu and so on) in one directory tree.
is the sourcecode of systemd the *only* example implementation of an INIT 1 daemon using cgroups right now? here I see a lot of Go code https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=cgroups&type= so why systemd is considered to be the only supervisor implementation supporting cgroups? because all the rest are just libraries? I'm a bit confused and very curious ciao! _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
