From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:54:11 +0300 Message-ID: From: James Chapman To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] multiple pings cause panic Topicbox-Message-UUID: 078fe75c-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:32 PM, erik quanstrom wr= ote: >> term% for (i in `{seq 1 254}) {ip/ping -n 1 192.168.1.1&} > > i think you mean > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0for(i in `{seq 1 254}){ip/ping -n1 192.168.1.$i} Sorry, I meant for(i in `{seq 1 254}){ip/ping -n1 192.168.1.$i&} I added the & as I didn't want to wait for one to timeout/succeed before trying the next one. Is there a more sensible way to do this from rc? I.e. to kick off a lot of pings at once and collect the results later. >> panic: Fsprotoclone: all conversations in use >> panic :Fsprotoclone: all conversations in use >> dumpstack disabled >> cpu0: exiting > nope. =A0that's the way it's supposed to go. > the idea is that if all the conversations are used up, > then your machine is useless and you might as well > panic. > > however, a fair question to ask is, is this limit > reasonable, and is panicing really the right thing > to do. I was expecting that a panic was a bug and I shouldn't be able to cause one= . I'm running a standalone system here but if I wasn't could I bring down the server like this or only my terminal?