From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 17 22:37:37 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A218E16A41C for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: from kane.otenet.gr (kane.otenet.gr [195.170.0.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E264043D46 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a098.otenet.gr [212.205.215.98]) by kane.otenet.gr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j6HMbUrg012719; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:37:31 +0300 Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6HMbTKn001597; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:37:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6HMbTot001596; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:37:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:37:29 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Ivan Voras Message-ID: <20050717223729.GD1291@gothmog.gr> References: <20050718000738.F69475@geri.cc.fer.hr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050718000738.F69475@geri.cc.fer.hr> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Errno man page X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:37 -0000 On 2005-07-18 00:14, Ivan Voras wrote: > I think the errno(i.e. intro(2)) page needs to be updated. There is > some information that doesn't "feel" current: > > - for EFBIG (#27) - I hope the limit is > 2.1E9 on ufs2 :) The maximum file size is probably a property of the underlying filesystem, so I don't think it should be explicitly defined as a value like 2.1E9; especially since this value is inaccurate, because it isn't equal to the value 2^31, which is probably what was meant. I think that instead of trying to guess a value that would be correct for many filesystems, but obviously wrong for others, we should just remove the explicit size. > - for EMFILE - is the limit on open files really 64 per process? Not necessarily. It's what kern.maxfilesperproc says. On my CURRENT system that is a little lower than kern.maxfiles: # gothmog:/home/giorgos$ sysctl -a | grep files # kern.maxfiles: 8072 # kern.maxfilesperproc: 7264 > (And of course, tuning(7) also has some historical figures) Can you help us identify them? - Giorgos