On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:39:26PM +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 23 November 2004 19:08:50 +0100, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > > I love it when someone else already did the work. ;) > > Except when it's only partial. If implementation matches > documentation, the fixed lower bound is 0 (zero). That's pretty low. > Most people want to say something like "Ssh will always get 5% of cpu, > no matter how many forkbombs explode. And the administrator's shell > will inherit those 5%." > > Ok, not many people know they want to say it, but some may learn the > hard way over time. ;)
yep, but taking care that overbooking doesn't happen can be done in userspace, literally ... so a 'minimum' of available resources can be guaranteeed only if you limit all other contexts to 1.0 - Sum[max], which in turn, is sufficient unless you have 'better' suggestions to solve this ... best, Herbert > Jörn > > PS: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp> cat _ > head _>>_ > . _&. _ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp> . _ > > Have fun! > > -- > Fancy algorithms are slow when n is small, and n is usually small. > Fancy algorithms have big constants. Until you know that n is > frequently going to be big, don't get fancy. > -- Rob Pike > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
