From: Alex Lyashkov (shadow_at_psoft.net)
Date: Sat 24 May 2003 - 22:19:33 BST
On Saturday 24 May 2003 22:43, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> good idea, but what about 'normal' processes 'correctly'
> spawning new processes? this would fail ...
> I guess it would be optimal, if the physical administrator
> could actually 'freeze' a virtual server, have a deep
> look at the processes, decide to send some signals to
> them (when/before unfrozen), reactivate (unfreeze) the
> virtual server (tasks) and be happy ...
> the next step could, for example, be making the whole
> vserver persistent and restart/reactivate a frozen/saved
> server on another machine ...
> (just an example, no need to do this jet ;)
next stage my work - CPU QoS and full control process scheduling.
but it`s later...
> > > - you could have a good look at the processes from
> > > outside (couldn't you?)
> > not. i don't see process outside vps. it`s kernel work.
> hmm, shouldn't there be some way to take a look
> at vserver processes, without being part of that
> > > - you probably could send any signal from ctx-1 or
> > > from vserver <ctx> enter? (am I wrong?)
> > not. from tools vserver_ctl.
> > run example:
> > vserver_ctl -x 4 stop sendsig sigkill
> > but it's need restart vps.
> why does it require the vps to be restarted?
> or did I get something wrong?
it`s sample send _ALL_ process in VPS SIGKILL.
after that no processes in VPS :)
> PS: is there a new patch on the way? just asking
> before I start to dissect the snapshot-1052304359.diff
> because I do not want to do it again next week ;)
i tested patch with RSS limit....
-- With best regards, Alex