From: Rainer Duffner (rainerultra-secure.de)
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 08:42:28 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

>
>Yes. That's my point. It's not an easy problem to solve for exactly the
>reason that there's just a continuum of legitimate needs which
>eventually become pathological (at different points for systems with
>different hardware capacity). What exactly characterizes pathological
>demand or load?
>
>
>

The "limits" are mostly to stop *server*-processes from going berserk
(e.g. apache) - or shell-users (anybody remember the shell-accounts one
got at university before the Windoze-desease spread?).

The limits work quite well on shell-only accounts (no X). But with X
(and qt et.al) apps have just been getting bigger and more power-hungry
- so limits are of not much use and I can see why SuSE dropped them
alltogether (can you say "support-nightmare"?).

On my FreeBSD-box, it looks like this:
rainerbsd>limits
Resource limits (current):
  cputime infinity secs
  filesize infinity kb
  datasize 524288 kb
  stacksize 65536 kb
  coredumpsize infinity kb
  memoryuse infinity kb
  memorylocked infinity kb
  maxprocesses 3618
  openfiles 7236
  sbsize infinity bytes
  vmemoryuse infinity kb

But of course, that's comparing apples with oranges (or penguins with
daemons)....

cheers,
Rainer

--
===================================================
~ Rainer Duffner - rainerultra-secure.de ~
~ Freising - Munich - Germany ~
~ Unix - Linux - BSD - OpenSource - Security ~
~ http://www.ultra-secure.de/~rainer/pubkey.pgp ~
===================================================

--
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-helpsuse.com
Security-related bug reports go to securitysuse.de, not here

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]