From: Arthur Corliss <corliss@digitalmages.com>
To: Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.6.x BSD Process Accounting w/High UID
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:37:29 -0900 (AKST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403080016290.15716@bifrost.nevaeh-linux.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0403080921420.6609@gockel.physik3.uni-rostock.de>
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> Seems like I didn't get your point. What is broken on x86 other than high
> UIDs?
I don't want to have us start talking in circles. As someone else pointed out
there's the time issues along with the uid/gid. Both are admittedly only
broken in corner cases not typically seen in the average server.
> In which way are the BSD accounting tools broken? I'm unfamiliar with
> them, but this might indeed allow us to estimate the user base.
The 'last' tool seems to have, at a minimum, some formatting issues. I don't
think anyone would have noticed since most distros seem to use the one bundled
with sysvinit, instead. The dump-utmp utility seems to share the problem in
that it doesn't print out completely useable/parseable output.
> The chunk with the 64-bit comment actually is independent of the high UID
> problem. It's there to prevent logging of wromng data on 64-bit arches,
> and is completely optimized away by the compiler on 32 bit ones.
> I could as well separate it into a different patch.
>
> I'll do a new version of the patch anyways, as I missed to change another
> comment.
Gotcha. I'll shut up, now. ;-)
> Yes, but how often do your users use more that 49 days of cputime?
I'm just being pendantic. I completely agree that a field with no predefined
range has to be capped. However, as a sys-admin I would say that I would
still find such long windows useful if someone was complaining about an
outtage for a service that basically only gets stopped/restarted during system
reboots. You could easily see what the history of interruptions would be for
those services.
> I'll wait a bit to see whether my other posting generates any feedback.
I'll wait as well. I'm very eager to see (at least) the uid issue resolved so
I don't have to keep hacking up kernel/glibc headers on new deployments.
--Arthur Corliss
Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
"Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-08 9:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-04 18:04 [PATCH] " Arthur Corliss
2004-03-04 19:51 ` Rik van Riel
2004-03-04 20:39 ` Arthur Corliss
2004-03-04 21:54 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-03-04 22:33 ` Arthur Corliss
2004-03-07 17:45 ` [PATCH] " Tim Schmielau
2004-03-07 21:20 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-03-08 0:56 ` Arthur Corliss
2004-03-08 9:08 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-03-08 9:37 ` Arthur Corliss [this message]
2004-03-09 16:16 ` [PATCH] " Jeremy Jackson
2004-03-09 18:22 ` Tim Schmielau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0403080016290.15716@bifrost.nevaeh-linux.org \
--to=corliss@digitalmages.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®