grt@twitch.UUCP ( G.R.Tomasevich) (11/16/88)
In article <9320003@hpisod1.HP.COM>, renglish@hpisod1.HP.COM (Bob English) writes: > Since the "damage" that this worm produced was denial of service through > overload, a fairness scheduler would indeed have prevented the damage, I do not see how. The worm forked many times, so how could the scheduler know that collectively all the processes together were being unfair? My understanding was that any given process by itself did not consume much processor time. Is that wrong? Does the scheduler consider all the members of a process-group? What about sites with processor-intensive applications? I assume Steve Bellovin considered these questions. -- George Tomasevich, att!twitch!grt AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ