Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:25:38 +0100 (BST) From: Nik Clayton <nik@blueberry.co.uk> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: fvwm95 port and process limits Message-ID: <199604221325.OAA21603@plum.blueberry.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
How do,
Up until a couple of days ago I was a happy ctwm user. But after seeing
the messages in some of the freebsd- lists about the fvwm95 port I thought
I'd try it out.
It's quite nice, and certainly manages to confuse some of the people around
the office. But it seems to be a bit of a process hog.
With ctwm, I had a kernel compiled with maxusers set to 20 and could
quite happily have 8 xterms running, a few Netscape windows and quite often
a copy of XEmacs. And all the usual Unix background tasks as well. On top
of that I've got a solitary CERN httpd, and one doing proxy cache for me
as well.
On switching to fvwm95, I started getting "error: cannot fork()" messages
from various programs, so recompiled a kernel with maxusers set to 40.
And I still get these errors fairly frequently.
Now obviously I can just bump this figure up another 20 or so, but I'd like
to know if (a) anyone using fvwm95 with FreeBSD has noticed this (b) what's
a 'good' figure for maxusers (the handbook says '4' should be enough for
anyone, but that doesn't gel with my experience) and (c) are there any
tools out there (other than playing with ps) which could report something
along the lines of
'x' processes (of a maximum 'y') running
Highwater mark since last reboot: 'z'
N
--
--+=[ Blueberry Hill Blueberry Design ]=+--
--+=[ http://www.blueberry.co.uk/ 1/9 Chelsea Harbour Design Centre, ]=+--
--+=[ WebMaster@blueberry.co.uk London, England, SW10 0XE ]=+--
--+=[ Don't anthropomorphize computers. They don't like it. ]ENTP
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604221325.OAA21603>