From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 10 17:16:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB18616A4DD for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:16:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca (H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca [66.96.18.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 365A543D70 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:16:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (desktop.home.local [172.16.0.200]) by H43.C18.B96.tor.eicat.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97E1114AA; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44B28B7F.1000507@rogers.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:16:47 -0400 From: Mike Jakubik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Swiger References: <44B16BE9.60508@rogers.com> <44B176D2.3080501@rogers.com> <44B276F7.4070507@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <44B276F7.4070507@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SpamToaster-Information: This messages has been scanned by SpamToaster http://www.digitalprogression.ca X-SpamToaster: Found to be clean X-SpamToaster-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.49, required 3.5, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60, DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME 0.00, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 1.71) X-SpamToaster-From: mikej@rogers.com X-Spam-Status: No Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MySQL and default memory limits (mysqld: Out of memory) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:16:36 -0000 Chuck Swiger wrote: > 512MB is more than enough for almost all processes to run just fine, > and is only really inappropriate for the case where you've got 1-plus > GB of physical RAM and want to dedicate the system to a single large > task, or perhaps a single-digit number of processes if you've got > several GB of physical RAM. > Such as a database server. I just think it would be nicer if this limit was dynamically set, based on your configuration. Just like MAXUSERS was a kernel variable, it is now dynamically set based on your resources.