From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 06:05:52 -0800 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <8ab632b9ed438c51b66f91487388be80@brasstown.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <20150126231029.8c160c2541c3a8ed07c0a62f@eigenstate.org> References: <0F748B67-FB11-464C-84FA-66B4E0B29918@9.offblast.org> <44900c0d4896622fa8a9411b05efe730@brasstown.quanstro.net> <7A132462-4747-471A-A4BF-D9381E38A4EA@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> <4c37cf728d5b0e7ae4ebd3c2e0c2cee4@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20150126231029.8c160c2541c3a8ed07c0a62f@eigenstate.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] protection against resource exhaustion Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3bd7a68c-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > IMO, instead of killing processes, it would be better to keep the hanging > behavior in place, but place limits on the resources used by a subsection > of the process tree. Think ulimit, but applying to entire process heirarchies. doesn't solve the issues of every program needing to deal with failed forks. wouldn't you just love it if a programming error were to put acme in a wierd state? the machine might as well reboot, since you are likely the only user, and the editor is wack. - erik