From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 20 17:56:48 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA07182 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:56:48 -0800 Received: from twirl.io.org (root@twirl.io.org [198.133.36.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA07171 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:56:29 -0800 Received: from flinch (flinch.io.org [198.133.36.153]) by twirl.io.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA04624; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:55:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:55:10 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao X-Sender: taob@flinch To: Bruce Evans cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: free vnode isn't In-Reply-To: <199511200545.QAA32683@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Bruce Evans wrote: > > It always was bogus. Defining CHILD_MAX and OPEN_MAX in > informs interested applications that these limits are fixed. Applications > can reasonably allocate arrays of size CHILD_MAX and OPEN_MAX at compile > time iff the limits are fixed. This would break if someone increases the > limits. So how can increasing this break anything? If an application limits itself to the assumption that a user can own 40 processes at a time, having the limit set to 256 shouldn't hurt. In other words, does it matter whether the default CHILD_MAX is 256, or that I type "unlimit" first to raise it to 256? > >what is the recommended > >method for raising the default resource limits for a user then? > > setrlimit(2) and sh(1) (ulimit). This only affects subsequent activities though. Once I logout, the limits are dropped back to the default settings. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org) Systems Administrator, Internex Online Inc. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"