Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:39:24 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Dean Gaudet <> | | Subject | Re: Killing clones |
| |
Um, why should the default soft-limit for descriptors be > 256 ? I heartily encourage code which raises the max hard limit... but I don't see any reason that the default soft-limit should be raised. The number of applications that actually make use of > 20 or 30 descriptors is very limited. Doesn't solaris still default soft to 64? BTW there are a number of 3rd party libraries that have builtin FD_SETSIZE limitations. An app that really wants to make use of lots of descriptors has to play stupid games anyhow. (Witness apache-1.2.1's ap_slack() function to keep low numbered descriptors free for use by lame libraries ... gag.)
Keeping a default soft-limit of 256 is good for backwards compatibility.
Dean
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Jim Nance wrote:
> > In general this brings up the question of whether we want to enforce a > > requirement that people upgrade to glibc when we move forward to the 2.2 > > kernel..... > > Its important that 2.2 can run binaries compiled with libc5. I think > it would be very unfortunate if packages like netscape and acrobat quit > running. We could probably do something with the personalities to ensure > that for older binaries getpid()<2^15 and open()<256. > > Jim >
|  |