Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:54:20 +0400 From: Juri Tsibrovski <jt@sw.ru> To: dg@root.com Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Considering FreeBSD Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960731165420.007dcc38@myth.sw.ru>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:16 31.07.96 -0700, David Greenman wrote: > No magic. It's just a value that seemed reasoonable at the time. Some >systems may create daemons with PIDs >48, so perhaps the value should be >increased a bit. YMMV. > >>So, what's the Pros et Contra, besides the risc of system crash when one of >>that processes going crazy? Any other solution? > > The worst that will happen is that the system will hang due to virtual >memory exhaustion. You should not increase it to >99, however, as 100 is >the starting point after it wraps at 30000 and thus may protect processes >that shouldn't be protected. What can prevent me from increasing that number too? I already run modified kernel with pids protected <250, and changed to 300 wrapping point. > The whole thing is admittedly somewhat of a kludge, but it actually handles >about 98% of the failure cases and is a far better solution (killing off the >process that faults when VM is exhausted) than hanging or crashing the system. In some cases (exactly what happened with me) I'd elect system crash with restart rather than have all our modem pool unusable till morning :) --- jt -- just typist :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2.2.32.19960731165420.007dcc38>