On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 12:41:19AM +0100, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> There are various patches-ways-to-do available, kernel gurus are still working
> on it...
> (leave always some 4% of mem for root, kill some process when mem is exhausted,
> which one to kill...)
which is a bad idea; 4% of 1GB i
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:25:25 Jussi Laako wrote:
> Marc Mutz wrote:
> >
> > Just to not miss the obvious: You know about ulimit(3)?
>
> Yes, but it doesn't stop deadlocks caused by kernel's VM system going
> wild... I think that no matter what user process does, root should be always
> able to s
Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> Just to not miss the obvious: You know about ulimit(3)?
Yes, but it doesn't stop deadlocks caused by kernel's VM system going
wild... I think that no matter what user process does, root should be always
able to stop it. User process should never be able to render whole syste
Jussi Laako wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Would it be possible to implement some VM CPUtime/bandwidth limitation?
>
Just to not miss the obvious: You know about ulimit(3)?
man 3 ulimit
help ulimit (when in bash).
Marc
--
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://EncryptionHOWTO.sourceforge.net/
Un
Hello,
Would it be possible to implement some VM CPUtime/bandwidth limitation?
We have server used by multiple developers. Problem is when someone happens
to implement memory hole to application the system goes wild swapping and
ALL other activity stops. No response to keyboard/mouse events nor
5 matches
Mail list logo
