Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:03:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Cc: mmead@Glock.COM (matthew c. mead) Subject: Re: CHILD_MAX Message-ID: <199605271603.SAA00854@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199605271522.LAA05548@Glock.COM> from "matthew c. mead" at "May 27, 96 11:22:31 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As matthew c. mead wrote: > Does anyone know why CHILD_MAX for the kernel and CHILD_MAX > in the /usr/include/sys/syslimits.h are different (128 and 40 > respectively)? I'm running into the problem of having too few > processes available. If I redefine the define in syslimits.h to > 128 will I be able to run right away, or am I correct in > presuming that I'm going to have to rebuild things? What all > will I have to rebuild? The correct way is options "CHILD_MAX=128" and rebuild the kernel. I've once got the idea to make this limit dynamic, depending on the size of the machine (amount of physical memory, speed of CPU), since it's mostly there to prevent denial of resource attacks (like the ``fork trap''). The current static limit doesn't fullfill this, it's too high for a 386/16 w/ 4 MB RAM, and far too low for wcarchive. Nobody (including me) ever got round to implement this however. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605271603.SAA00854>