From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 18 13:34:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F13C16A4CE for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:34:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D014143D2F for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:34:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from be-well.no-ip.com ([66.30.196.44]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004061813335701200hr2f4e>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:33:57 +0000 Received: by be-well.no-ip.com (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 7773674; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: Richard@Tribune-IS.com References: From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 18 Jun 2004 09:33:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <441xkdvvlm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Tuneable Parameters X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:34:13 -0000 "Richard Burnett-Godfree" writes: > I am trying to port software currently running on hp-ux to freeBSD 4.9. > > The application I have will normally run for large numbers of users > accessing database applications. > > On hp-ux to enable reasonable user numbers with large numbers of files open > I would normally tune > > MAXFILES No files per process > MAXFILES_LIM System level max files per process > MAXUPRC Max no user processes > MAXUSERS Used by kernel generation to calc tables sizes > NFILE Max no files open > NFLOCKS Max no file locks > NINODE Max no inodes open > NPTY Max no of virtual telnet devices > > Where do these exist in FreeBSD or do I not worry about these type of > things. I would normally experience 'unable to fork process' or issues with > performance as unix files are opened and accessed dynamically on a 'least > recently used' basis based on the size of some of these tables. See "man tuning" but the process limits (see limit(1)) are not, by default, restrictive. If your box has a lot of memory (which it sounds like it should), then leaving maxusers at the default of 0 (i.e., auto-tuning at boot time) may well be okay for you. Of course, that means you'd need to check the number of file handles to see if that's sufficient (it looks like the bottleneck for this application). Although those are affected by maxusers, they can be specified explicitly to override what maxusers would set them to. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org:8088/~lowell/