Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Menno Lageman wrote:
>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>> I think this project should so introduce task.max-processes since
>>> there is already task,project,zone max-lwps.
>>
>> Darren,
>>
>> I'll look into adding task.max-processes. (I hadn't considered adding
>> them because most users seem to be interested the higher level zone
>> rctls rather than the finer grained rctls).
>
> I understand that task.max-processes isn't required for the problem you
> were initially solving but I have other uses for it in particular see
> the following article I wrote on limiting user logins using rctls. It
> would combine with this been much better to use task.max-processes than
> task.max-lwps if a limit on the number of processes was required.
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/limiting_users_to_one_login
>
To add the task.max-processes resource control, I'd like to amend this case to
also include these interfaces:
INTERFACE TYPE COMMITMENT
task.max-processes resource control Committed
caps:{zoneid}:nprocs_task_{taskid} kstat Uncommitted
Menno
