| 1 |
Am Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:33:05 -0700 |
| 2 |
schrieb Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > It allows portage to properly shut down remaining processes from |
| 5 |
> > ebuild build phases by knowing exactly which processes have been |
| 6 |
> > spawn in the compile phase, and it allows openrc to better manage |
| 7 |
> > the processes and proper shut down any processes belonging to a |
| 8 |
> > service. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I understand that, in principle. In practice, sshd works fine without |
| 11 |
> it, for example. And portage doesn't have a cgroups related USE |
| 12 |
> variable. Doesn't mean I won't find a need for it, someday. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It does have such a FEATURE in make.conf and it's used to better manage |
| 15 |
run-away processes from build phases. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > Also you may benefit from setting resource limits and fair resource |
| 18 |
> > sharing for a group of processes where ulimit applies only to single |
| 19 |
> > processes and doesn't know about resource shares at all. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Overall, it makes sense to have it. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> It makes sense that the kernel has it. Should it be enabled? For a |
| 24 |
> server, probably. For a single-user workstation? Maybe. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Maybe I don't have the ordinary workstation, but I use it to limit |
| 27 |
memory of sometimes-run-away services (memory-wise) and to control |
| 28 |
resource usage of container machines I'm using during development. |
| 29 |
Probably not the ordinary use-case... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Kai |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives