Messages in this thread |  | | From | Tim Connors <> | Subject | Re: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited | Date | Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:06:27 +1000 |
| |
In linux.kernel, you wrote: > > resource > group priority kill priority > system 0 0 - never kill > support 1 1 > payroll 2 2 > production 3 3 > general user 4 4 > production backgournd 5 3 <- make sure testing and > general user are killed BEFORE production > testing 6 5 > > Note that in the example above, production has the second lowest resource > priority, but a higher kill priority ("we don't care how long it takes, but > it must complete"). > > In a system with sufficient resources, everyone would get what they needed. > As resources become limit, payroll gets resources first and testing gets > the least. In the extreme case, when the system is overwhelmed, testing is > the first to be removed.
You seemed to have just described a combination of forced niceness (from login scripts) and ulimit. Man ulimit about how to limit number of processes plus memory etc, so people can't fork() bomb you out of existance.
-- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Conclusion to my thesis -- "It is trivial to show that it is clearly obvious that this is not woofly"
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |