From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Dec 19 11:26:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA10755 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:26:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from mx3.cso.uiuc.edu (mx3.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA10748 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:26:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu) Received: from alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (alecto.physics.uiuc.edu [128.174.83.167]) by mx3.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA27144; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:25:48 -0600 (CST) Received: by alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) id NAA17448; Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:23:47 -0600 From: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Message-Id: <199712191923.NAA17448@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: fsck problem at boot time To: scot@poptart.org (Scot Elliott) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:23:46 -0600 (CST) Cc: iang@digs.iafrica.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Scot Elliott" at Dec 19, 97 06:18:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I personally dislike the practice of setting CPU limits for users. There > really seems very little point in putting a hard limit of CPU time on a > process. There are many situations when users have "run-away" processes. At some point I was sick of manually killing run-away pine-s, ftp processes, etc. which became such after the connection was terminated (e.g. due to a bad connection) but not closed completely. Setting CPU limit for users' processes would provide automatic killing of such "fantoms" (Note, that such pine starts eating lots of CPU cycles for some reason, bringing the load index to 1 (if it was near 0 initially).) IgoR