From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Oct 29 09:13:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA09313 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:13:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA09308 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:13:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with UUCP id KAA02676; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:13:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.ampr.ab.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29303; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:12:52 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:12:52 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko X-Sender: marcs@alive.ampr.ab.ca To: Cliff Addy cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: maxuser > 64 warning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Don't worry about the warning. It is just there for fun. You may also want something like: options "SOMAXCONN=256" options "NMBCLUSTERS=4096" for a busy web server, depending on your definition of busy. On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Cliff Addy wrote: > We're building a custom kernel for a busy webserver. We set the maxusers > to 256, the CHILD_MAX to 256, and the OPEN_MAX to 256. When we run > config, we get a warning that maxusers is over 64. > > Is there a problem with maxusers over 64? We want to insure that the > kernel tables are large enough to handle a large number of processes > (we've already had problems with full tables) and that we can avoid > insufficient file handle problems. The server is has 64 megs of RAM, > most of which is used as cache, so a large kernel wouldn't seem to be a > problem. Would the kernel be significantly slower? > > Cliff >