From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/917 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jared Rhine Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Suggest documentation of "soft limit" logic for chpst Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:47:04 -0800 Message-ID: <1132724824.22936.76.camel@bear.wordzoo.com> References: <4382321B.9050700@wordzoo.com> <20051122045459.GA1493@skarnet.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1132725392 23747 80.91.229.2 (23 Nov 2005 05:56:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 05:56:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-1153-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Nov 23 06:56:18 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EenRi-0000zT-Ms for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:45:35 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 21069 invoked by uid 76); 23 Nov 2005 05:45:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 21063 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2005 05:45:50 -0000 Original-To: Laurent Bercot In-Reply-To: <20051122045459.GA1493@skarnet.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:917 Archived-At: On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 05:54 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > I had been trying to raise the limit on number of open files via 'chpst > > -o 10000'. I thought this was working properly, so I was focused on > > examining the daemon for bugs. Then I finally had the insight to test > > whether 'chpst -o 10000 && ulimit -a' was doing what I expect. Now I'm > > doing a 'ulimit -n 10000' instead of a 'chpst -o 10000'. > > chpst is not a shell builtin, and does not work the way ulimit does. Sorry. A typo of mine caused you to overinterpret my cluelessness. I am aware of both ulimit and chpst's behavior; I could not be using chpst successfully in other contexts without that awareness. The actual command I used to test was `chpst -o 10000 sh -c 'ulimit -a'`. The rest of my concerns still stand. It would be helpful to have the specific soft/hard behaviors of chpst documented in the man page. chpst may still benefit from fuller ulimit-style support (specifically raising), as opposed to only the "limit" operation of setrlimit(2). As I believe both chpst and the shell ulimit call use the same system call to change process limits, chpst could in theory be made to support more ulimit-style features. > By the way, 10000 is overkill. With respect, since I did not indicate the context or appliciation for my need for 10K open files, you don't have any basis by which to judge whether it's overkill. Trust me, I need 10K open files for the application in question, and there is nothing amiss with my application, system, or design. I appreciate your attempts at education. -- Jared Rhine