From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 29 10:53:57 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA16942 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:53:57 -0700 Received: from aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw ([140.109.40.248]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA16936 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 10:53:49 -0700 Received: (from taob@localhost) by aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw (8.6.11/8.6.9) id BAA14302; Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:52:40 +0800 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 01:52:39 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: Mike Pritchard cc: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 16-bit pids? (was Re: 16, 32, and 64bit types?) In-Reply-To: <199508282131.QAA27212@mpp.minn.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Mike Pritchard wrote: > > Since the subject of PID_MAX has come up, what is the reason > for having it set to 30,000? That isn't really that large of > a value, especially on a busy system. How about raising it to > something like 90,000? Even if you had 1000 processes running on one system, that still leaves 29000 pids free. Even forking off a new process 10 times a second will still take you over 45 minutes to cycle through 29000 pids... what's the point of having >30000 PID_MAX? -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org