[72966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Quick question.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Jakma)
Wed Aug 4 03:09:58 2004
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 08:09:13 +0100 (IST)
From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
To: Paul G <paul@rusko.us>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <043001c479ef$d657a7f0$0200a8c0@rusko>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Paul G wrote:
> the second cpu buys you time - it is unlikely you're going to be
> able to react in time on a busy single cpu box with a runaway
> process (it launches into a death sprial almost immediately), but
> you would usually have 10-15 mins on a dual cpu box at a minimum or
> maybe infinity if you enforce cpu affinity for apps that tend to
> misbehave.
Why do you have 10-15 mins? If the application is multi-threaded and
has a reasonable workload, there are plenty of types of bugs that
will result in one spinning thread after the other, you need far
more than just 2 CPUs! Or maybe your application vendor has "at least
10minutes between hitting bugs!" on it's feature list? ;)
Really, what you to need do is (in the face of such buggy apps) is to
set per-task CPU time resource limits appropriate to how much
cpu-time a task needs and how much you can afford - be it a 1, 2 or n
CPU system.
> paul
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
I came to MIT to get an education for myself and a diploma for my mother.
