Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 13:02:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Pritchard <mpp@mpp.minn.net> To: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw (Brian Tao) Cc: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 16-bit pids? (was Re: 16, 32, and 64bit types?) Message-ID: <199508291802.NAA02791@mpp.minn.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950830015034.13816I-100000@aries> from "Brian Tao" at Aug 30, 95 01:52:39 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Tao wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Aug 1995, Mike Pritchard wrote: > > > > Since the subject of PID_MAX has come up, what is the reason > > for having it set to 30,000? That isn't really that large of > > a value, especially on a busy system. How about raising it to > > something like 90,000? > > Even if you had 1000 processes running on one system, that still > leaves 29000 pids free. Even forking off a new process 10 times a > second will still take you over 45 minutes to cycle through 29000 > pids... what's the point of having >30000 PID_MAX? In the past I've been involved in some projects where pid collisions due to pid wrap was a problem. I'm not currently doing anything that this is causing any problems with, but seeing the low limit reminded me of those past projects. In that case, the longer you could keep from re-using pids, the better. -- Mike Pritchard mpp@mpp.minn.net "Go that way. Really fast. If something gets in your way, turn"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508291802.NAA02791>