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    [W:0.023 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site