Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 12:31:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@Glock.COM> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CHILD_MAX Message-ID: <199605271631.MAA05895@Glock.COM> In-Reply-To: <199605271603.SAA00854@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at May 27, 96 06:03:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch writes: > As matthew c. mead wrote: > > Does anyone know why CHILD_MAX for the kernel and CHILD_MAX > > in the /usr/include/sys/syslimits.h are different (128 and 40 > > respectively)? I'm running into the problem of having too few > > processes available. If I redefine the define in syslimits.h to > > 128 will I be able to run right away, or am I correct in > > presuming that I'm going to have to rebuild things? What all > > will I have to rebuild? > The correct way is > options "CHILD_MAX=128" > and rebuild the kernel. I thought I'd seen someone say that this didn't work. Are you sure that CHILD_MAX=128 in the kernel is not the default? Does syslimits.h really not need to be changed from 40? > I've once got the idea to make this limit dynamic, depending on the > size of the machine (amount of physical memory, speed of CPU), since > it's mostly there to prevent denial of resource attacks (like the > ``fork trap''). The current static limit doesn't fullfill this, it's > too high for a 386/16 w/ 4 MB RAM, and far too low for wcarchive. > Nobody (including me) ever got round to implement this however. Hmm. How difficult an undertaking is it? -matt -- Matthew C. Mead mmead@Glock.COM http://www.goof.com/~mmead/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605271631.MAA05895>