From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 5 16:45:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753E1106566B for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:45:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470F78FC13 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15850 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2010 16:45:39 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Dec 2010 16:45:39 -0000 Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.6]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6074E5080B; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 86B571CC95; Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:45:30 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Yuri References: <4CF9C1E5.3070101@rawbw.com> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 11:45:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4CF9C1E5.3070101@rawbw.com> (yuri@rawbw.com's message of "Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:21:57 -0800") Message-ID: <44r5dw88yd.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade causes kernel message: maxproc limit exceeded by uid 0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 16:45:40 -0000 Yuri writes: > Beginning at some time less than 1 month ago I started getting such > message. Increasing maxproc doesn't help. Current values are like > this: > kern.maxproc: 6164 > kern.maxprocperuid: 5547 > > What may be causing such condition? limits(1), perhaps?