Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:55:10 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Tao <taob@io.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panic: free vnode isn't Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951120204747.25338S-100000@flinch> In-Reply-To: <199511200545.QAA32683@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> It always was bogus. Defining CHILD_MAX and OPEN_MAX in <limits.h>
> 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"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.951120204747.25338S-100000>