From owner-freebsd-net Fri Sep 28 20:12:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from bushwire.net (f1.bushwire.net [64.81.73.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2835E37B40B for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18096 invoked by uid 1001); 29 Sep 2001 03:12:09 -0000 Date: 29 Sep 2001 03:12:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20010929031209.18095.qmail@prefix.bushwire.net> From: "Mark" To: "Nguyen-Tuong Long Le" Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FD_SETSIZE References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from le@cs.unc.edu on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:30:33PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:30:33PM -0400, Nguyen-Tuong Long Le allegedly wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering what is the side effects of increasing FD_SETSIZE > beyond 1024? Our group have a propiertary web server software that > handles a large number of sockets. While increasing the kern.maxfiles > and kern.maxfilesperproc gives our web server more connections, > select() seems to fail if the descriptor is beyond 1024. > > Can I just increase FD_SETSIZE and recompile the kernel? I saw > some magic numbers in kern/sys_generic.c and am not sure whether > there are some side effects. I know this doesn't answer your question directly, but do you have to use select()? If not, you might want to consider poll() or better yet, kqueue(). Neither suffer from a predefined limit such as FD_SETSIZE and both should scale and perform as well as, or better than, select(). Regards. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message