[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.0, loggings, cpu quotas, 2.1 issues, etc.
On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Alan Cox wrote:

> > 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.

A wonderful idea. Would imposing a memory usage quota be a extrememly
difficult task, Alan?

> > 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

Haha... and students you can yell at. :-) But it doesn't do any good.


Jeff Johnson GCS d- s: !a C+++ UA++(+++) P+ L+ E---- W+++ N+++(+++++) K- w(+) O(-)
KE4QWX M- V-(--) PS+ PE Y++ PGP+++(+++++) t- 5 X+++(+++++) R tv+ b++ DI-- D G++ e* !h r y?
Nerdity Test = 66% Hacker Test = 45%
1024/3397E001 1995/06/10 5B 92 8B 34 84 E9 42 26 DC FB F7 C4 1E 0E 80 29

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.114 / U:1.704 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site