Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Alan Cox <> | | Subject | Re: 2.0, loggings, cpu quotas, 2.1 issues, etc. | | Date | Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:40:26 +0100 (BST) |
| |
> It's implementable. The kernel needs a "struct userinfo" per logged-in user > for that to work. The same structure could also hold total memory usage, > which would enable us to finally block most of the more malicious > fork/malloc bombs.
Make that a chargeable group and we get the ability to partition a big machine up by department and to do sensible charging schemes. For big number crunchers that is an issue.
> But then, if you have that kind of user population where this is a > significant problem, your money is better spent on educating these guys to > Not Do That (and kick the few people who can't understand the words "cease > and desist" off the system).
Users you can educate, "Customers" tend to be trickier
|  |