Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:56:12 -0500 (EST)
From:      "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>
To:        dyson@iquest.net
Cc:        dillon@apollo.backplane.com, toasty@home.dragondata.com, dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: High Load cron patches - comments?
Message-ID:  <199901281856.NAA21763@y.dyson.net>
In-Reply-To: <199901281849.NAA21723@y.dyson.net> from "John S. Dyson" at "Jan 28, 99 01:49:00 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John S. Dyson said:
> Matthew Dillon said:
> > :> 
> > :
> > :I considered a 'maximum children' limit.
> > :
> > :How do you prevent a user from breaking cron by executing 100 shell scripts
> > :that have 'sleep 10000' in them?
> > :
> > :Kevin
> > 
> >     By closing his account.
> > 
> >     No, really... by closing his account.  If a user abuses his privilage
> >     there isn't much you can do about it no matter what kind of rate limiting
> >     you have.  All you can do is try to set the limits such that you can
> >     still login as root and turn off the account.
> > 
> >     About once a month, some user on some BEST machine makes a mistake and
> >     does something that causes a huge load.  It is usually NOT intentional.
> >     Sometimes it's a CGI runaway on a heavily-accessed site, sometimes it's 
> >     a shell script gone awry.
> > 
> >     We've seen loads of 600.
> > 
> >     The funny thing is that even with a load of 600, people can still login
> >     to the machine and do stuff.  This is because either the user or the
> >     subsystem involved has hit a hard limit.
> > 
> With proper limit schemes, your performance for the non-obnoxious user would
> even be better.  One doesn't limit the "system" to forks/sec, but one limits
> individual processes (if you want to set a hard limit like that.)  One can
> also do the right thing, and make sure that the fork has appropriate CPU
> usage accounting, so that the chargeback to the forking process is correct
> for that kind of activity.
> 
One more comment about this posting:
Rather than limiting the "system" to forks/sec, but limit it's CPU usage
to something sane.

-- 
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@iquest.net      | it makes one look stupid
jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901281856.NAA21763>