Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262316AbUK3UDT (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:03:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262307AbUK3Tzz (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:55:55 -0500 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:14494 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262285AbUK3Twu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:52:50 -0500 Subject: Re: user- vs kernel-level resource sandbox for Linux? From: Alan Cox To: grendel@caudium.net Cc: Peter Chubb , Jeff Dike , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20041130023947.GI5378@beowulf.thanes.org> References: <20041129101919.GB9419@beowulf.thanes.org> <200411292000.iATK0qOF004026@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <16811.40687.892939.304185@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20041130023947.GI5378@beowulf.thanes.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1101840505.25628.105.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:48:27 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 768 Lines: 14 On Maw, 2004-11-30 at 02:39, Marek Habersack wrote: > per-process isn't enough. I specifically need something to limit the memory > usage on a more global scale - per user ID or per process group or a similar > way of grouping related processes. That's the only way to tame processes > like apache. At this point the option I'm considering is Xen, unless I can > find a userland solution to the problem... I'd suggest playing with Xen - its very efficient and it really does come close to perfect constraint for resources. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/