Re: RAM usage limits

• Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:53:00 PDT
• From:
  Justin C Harris <jch1134@jackson.freenet.org>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960420210221.3685C-100000@Manth-Trax.mistral.co.uk>

On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Bartmoss wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Justin C Harris wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	Would it be possible to have another small task running in the
> > background that keeps up with the MOO's total usage, then if the MOO's
> > usage grows by 10-15 megs (or by a set number on $server_options) in a 
> > very short time, it could take the necessary action to find the specific 
> > process and kill it? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 					Justin Harris 
> 
> That would be a wee bit laggy, as Pavel has made it very clear that he 
> will not be doing anything about this as it is not a server bug. 
> The best solution is that if a site develops this problem is to monitor 
> evals with out informing people. True people could use self deleting 
> verbs, but in sever cases security could be tightened (might be difficult 
> in a site as big as Lambda but hey). 
> 
> Chris.
>
How would it be laggy? All it would be doing is basically comparing two
numbers, to see if there was a huge difference. e.g. The next server
maintainer could add a mem_check() function, which would return the
amount of memory the MOO is using (btw, that would be a great function
to have, even if it's not used for this purpose), then add a 4th process,
that compares these numbers, and maybe even have it check in options.h 
whether a person wants this task running. It should be a fairly small one.


					Justin

• Re: RAM usage limits
• From: Martian <wsmyth@wichita.fn.net>
• Re: RAM usage limits
• From: Christopher Unkel <cunkel@us.itd.umich.edu>

• Re: RAM usage limits
• From: Bartmoss <bartmoss@mistral.co.uk>

• Prev: Re: RAM usage limits
• Next: Re: RAM usage limits
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows