Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!andromeda!marco From: marco@andromeda.UUCP (the wharf rat) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Braindamage. Was ulimit Message-ID: <193@andromeda.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Jan-87 18:11:11 EST Article-I.D.: andromed.193 Posted: Sat Jan 10 18:11:11 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Jan-87 23:49:04 EST References: <790@maynard.BSW.COM> <166@herman.UUCP> <10943@sun.uucp> <752@imagen.UUCP> Organization: Franklin's Tower Lines: 15 Keywords: ulimit SysV irksome Summary: Yeah, like maxproc ( MAXUP ) In article <752@imagen.UUCP>, SofPasuk@imagen.UUCP (Munach Rvi'i) writes: > require that the system be brought "down" and that a new kernel be relinked is > absurd - If there are to be user-oriented "limits" as part of the system, the > default and/or system-wide maximum should be dynamically setable by the > Yeah, if one of my users wants to run 100 procs at once and eat up all the resources, or make 100 meg files and eat up all the disc space, I actually have to re-make the kernel. :-) I think the idea is to figure out what you want the system and the users to be able to do, then set up accordingly. Dynamicly setable options are for people who can't think ahead. how do you spell "dynamically", anyway?, W.rat