Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 10:01:13 +0000 From: Ed Hudson <elh@p5.spnet.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kernel limits Message-ID: <199502051001.KAA01142@p5.spnet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 05 Feb 1995 18:56:38 %2B1100." <199502050756.SAA12171@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > CHILD_MAX is bogus. It is only used to report a bogus limit to applications > in <limits.h> and to initialize MAXUPRC. MAXUPRC is only the _initial_ > value for the _current_ (soft) process limit. The actual limit is the > _hard_ process limit, which is initially `maxproc' but can be reduced by > applications. `maxproc' itself can be changed using > `sysctl -w kern.maxproc=whatever'. Applications that need a larger limit > should use setrlimit() to increase their soft limit. Systems that need > a larger limit should use sysctl in /etc/rc.local to increase `maxproc'. wow, i like the sysctl command - a great 4.4 addition. thanks for pointing it out to me (rubbing my nose in it?). i guess i've worked on too many os's where the hard limit was close to or the same as the soft limit. i hadn't realized the FBSD was so rational that i could actually handle this in a .cshrc (but a .profile?). however, let me ask again as to why the value of 40 for CHILD_MAX/MAXUPRC, as an initial setting of a user's maxproc, is still relevent in a modern workstation? i think that the login process of a user that spawns a multi-desktop window manager is sufficient to suggest a big increase in this value. each xterm/rxvt is really a count of (at least) 2 processes, plus whatever a user might be running in an xterm underneath the shell... >> 1) bump /usr/src/sys/sys/param.h:MAXSYMLNK from 8 to >> something reasonable, such as 32. > > This limit should probably be changeable using sysctl. it would be great if this were indeed changeable via sysctl. and would certainly satisfy my needs. but this is overkill for a number that is otherwise rarely relevent. it looks to me like this is only used as a constant in an iteration count check. i don't quite feel competent enough with the kernel sources yet to volunteer to implement this change. thanks for your comments. -elh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502051001.KAA01142>