Hi :) > jonathanthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Perhaps we aren't visualizing the same reality here: do you mean > > you > > consider it perfectly acceptable to kill an application that > > doesn't > > jump > > when you say "Jump right NOW!" when it is very busy, because the > > Exactly, that's the idea behind it. If it is designed in a way that > it > cannot answer in a timely manner, I consider this a bug in the > implementation of this application. And we definitely don't need to > live with those, IMO. I agree. A line has to be drawn _somewhere_. :) (also a stable system outweighs a kept running (un)stable app. the system should only probably issue these kind of things if it's own integrity comes into trouble otherwise) > > system is so loaded down that it is swapping heavily, for instance? > > The application could be working perfectly correctly, and doing > > things as > > timely as reality could ever permit given the resources, but it > > simply can't > > respond *that* quickly, due to hardware limitations it can't > > control. > > I don't think there are any excuses for being that late. Swapping of > course could be detected and timeouts postponed if this turns out to > be > a problem. But honestly, I don't think it will; if a team is playing > video it doesn't make any sense to swap it out, and our VM will be > very > hesitant towards swapping out applications anyway. But we'll see how > that turns out :) My take is that the timeouts should be as high as possible to have the best. -slow enough so even the slowest (reasonable) app can respond -fast enough the systems remains stable, and the user isn't tempted to do that 3-finger salute or even press 'reset'. 'reasonably' can be defined and finetuned over time. For starters I'd take Be's values, they have a background, no doubt. Bye! Rudolf.