lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: forking
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com>
> To: Greg Lindahl <lindahl@cs.virginia.edu>
> Cc: Victor Orlikowski <vjo@duke.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: forking
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>
> > > Ok then, we seem to be looking at a 2.2.x problem, what regarding, I
> > > don't know. It's not in 2.0.x (I've pushed my box into the 512 range on
> > > 2.0.36 and then received the "cannot fork"). Suggestions so far have
> > > been memory fragmentation and insufficient procs. Anyone else have
> > > ideas?
> >
> > Actually, I've always had a problem like this on 2.0.x. I have a
> > 64-node cluster, and I frequently run scripts which fork 128 processes
> > at a time. These scripts occasionally get 'cannot fork', with no
> > resource starvation evident... I wrote some test programs but wasn't
> > able to get a nice, repeatable behavior.
>
> I get 501 on my system.

Same program halts for me at ~250. About right since I was running as
a non-root user.

Oh, kernel 2.2.6.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans