huge memory allocation

[John F Haugh II]

In article <1991Mar18.164527.7871 at edm.uucp> geoff at edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) writes:
>In article <5924 at awdprime.UUCP> julie at levell.austin.ibm.com (Julie A. Levell) writes:
>>No, some of the limits are enforced and some aren't (but stay tuned).
>>Anyway, I've include a note here that talks about how /etc/security/limits
>>is used.  It's very primative, but I would appreciate your comments.
>>
>
>	Yes but if you look at the man page for limits in "Files Reference"
>manual. It's line for each of the tuneables in limits except fsize ends
>with "Not currently implemented" (That's not an exact quote necessarily).
>
>So are you saying they are now implemented and the documentation is out of 
>date. 

The exact quote is "Not used.", and yes it is wrong.  There are some fields
which aren't used, or enforced, but most of them are.  Perhaps Robin
Wilson could post the definitive list of fields that are initialized in
/etc/security/limits as well as the list of resource limits that are
actually supported by the system.

The ones which I can think of right off the top of my head that are
mostly ignored are "rss" and "cpu".  I know that "stack" and "data" are
enforced because setting illegal values does prevent programs from
executing.  I know that "core" is enforced (but perhaps not initialized
from the /etc/security/limits file) because you can set it to a very
small value and inhibit core dumps.

This question is definitely one for the FAQ posting for this group.
-- 
John F. Haugh II      |      I've Been Moved     |    MaBellNet: (512) 838-4340
SneakerNet: 809/1D064 |          AGAIN !         |      VNET: LCCB386 at AUSVMQ
BangNet: ..!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!snowball.austin.ibm.com!jfh (e-i-e-i-o)