3 ms·
From their point of view, he'd repeatedly ignored three separate requests to clean up his CPU usage. After he refused to do anything about it, they took care of
by rufo 17y ago
From their point of view, he'd repeatedly ignored three separate requests to clean up his CPU usage. After he refused to do anything about it, they took care of the problem. Would it have been better if they disabled his account entirely?
- pyre 17y agoBut they had already capped his CPU usage. I see only 3 possibilities: * Their cap failed to actually cap his CPU usage. In this case their incompetence is at fault. * They failed to make the cap restrictive enough. In which case, they should have just further limited his max actual CPU usage. * The box is actually well oversold on the number of clients that are on it, and there is no possible way to 'cap' someone's CPU usage to within a reasonable level while being able to allow that person to use 100% of their cap without issue. In this case, it's also their fault for over-selling the box and for misrepresenting what a cap means (and their policy regarding caps).