From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Nov 20 19:13:02 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id TAA16479
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:13:02 -0800
Received: from wink.io.org (root@wink.io.org [198.133.36.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA16473
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:12:58 -0800
Received: from flinch (flinch.io.org [198.133.36.153]) by wink.io.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA22741; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:07:14 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:06:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Tao <taob@io.org>
X-Sender: taob@flinch
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: panic: free vnode isn't
In-Reply-To: <199511210234.NAA23764@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951120220426.25338W-100000@flinch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Bruce Evans wrote:
> 
> The 41th process would fail to fit in a table with space for 40.

    So doing an "unlimit" before running a program with this kind of
table would also cause it to fail?

> Changing MAXUPRC has the same effect as typing `ulimit -u 256' in
> sh before starting _every_ process.

    Would changing MAXUPRC be better then?  Calling ulimit or
setrlimit before each process isn't really practical.
--
Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org)
Systems Administrator, Internex Online Inc.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"