From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:38:15 +1100 Message-ID: From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a0924873a604ef9a7cc3 Subject: Re: [9fans] Maximal number of processes Topicbox-Message-UUID: b1b828be-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --089e0141a0924873a604ef9a7cc3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Good work. As my good friend Boyd once said "Don't give me bullshit speculation. Measure something!". brucee On 10 January 2014 20:15, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > On 10 January 2014 09:11, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >> At that point I decided to quite while I was still ahead. > > > 20,000 did not work because it ran out of kernel physical memory. That > preallocation could be adjusted, but at some point the available kernel > virtual address space will limit what it can allocate. > --089e0141a0924873a604ef9a7cc3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good work. As my good friend Boyd once said "Don'= t give me bullshit speculation. Measure something!".

brucee


On 10 January 2014 20:15, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.c= om> wrote:

On 10 January 2014 09:11, Charles Forsyth <charl= es.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
At that point I decided to quite while I was= still ahead.

20,000 did not work because it r= an out of kernel physical memory. That preallocation could be adjusted, but= at some point the available kernel virtual address space will limit what i= t can allocate.

--089e0141a0924873a604ef9a7cc3--