Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 12 Jun 1996 08:42:12 +0000 (GMT) | From | Jeff Johnson <> | Subject | Re: 2.0, loggings, cpu quotas, 2.1 issues, etc. |
| |
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 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? > > I can see some semantics issues like who do you charge for a shared page, > both, half each, ... (I like half each as it will encourage people to run > two of the same job at once as its cheaper on machine resources!) > > Alan >
You could always ignore shared memory to get this out the door. :-)
-- Jeff Johnson GCS d- s: !a C+++ UA++(+++) P+ L+ trn@gate.net E---- W+++ N+++(+++++) K- w(+) O(-) KE4QWX M- V-(--) PS+ PE Y++ PGP+++(+++++) t- http://www.gate.net/~trn 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
|  |