lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans