From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/919 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Laurent Bercot Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Suggest documentation of "soft limit" logic for chpst Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:35:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20051123133517.GA25718@skarnet.org> References: <4382321B.9050700@wordzoo.com> <20051122045459.GA1493@skarnet.org> <1132724824.22936.76.camel@bear.wordzoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1132753098 3166 80.91.229.2 (23 Nov 2005 13:38:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-1155-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Nov 23 14:38:17 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eeum0-0007fz-Fs for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:34:56 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26172 invoked by uid 76); 23 Nov 2005 13:35:17 -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 26166 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Nov 2005 13:35:17 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1132724824.22936.76.camel@bear.wordzoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:919 Archived-At: > A typo of mine caused you to overinterpret my cluelessness. Okay. Sorry about that - couldn't be sure. ;) > 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. I'm a bit confused by your question, then. Only soft limits are taken into account by the kernel: only soft limits can generate SIGXCPU, make sbrk() or open() fail, etc. etc. When you say "changing the limits for a process", you're naturally talking about soft limits. Hard limits exist only to prevent a process from raising its soft limits beyond certain values. They're only taken into account when performing setrlimit(). Hard limits don't limit a process, they limit a process' limits. ;) I'll try to reformulate your suggestion: Whereas ulimit allows hard limit manipulations as well as soft limit ones, chpst only handles soft limits. This can be confusing for ulimit users; the chpst documentation should mention the fact that only soft limits can be modified. Additionally, it would be nice to have an option to make chpst change hard limits too, and thus emulate ulimit's behaviour more closely. Is my reformulation accurate ? > 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 believe you. Pardon my curiosity, then: what kind of application are you running ? Is it a server, and in that case, is it using specific techniques to avoid the c10k problem ? I'll understand perfectly if you choose not to answer, or to answer in private. -- Laurent.