Re: Killing/balancing processes when overcommited

From: Tim Connors (tconnors@astro.swin.edu.au)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 02:06:27 EST


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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:28 EST