From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11181 invoked from network); 21 Oct 1999 01:53:29 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 21 Oct 1999 01:53:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8543 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 1999 01:53:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8349 Received: (qmail 8536 invoked from network); 21 Oct 1999 01:53:22 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <991021015310.ZM9044@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 01:53:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Zefram "Re: PATCH: Re: Patch: 3.1.6-bart-7: Another rlimit" (Oct 20, 9:17pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Zefram Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Patch: 3.1.6-bart-7: Another rlimit Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 20, 9:17pm, Zefram wrote: } Subject: Re: PATCH: Re: Patch: 3.1.6-bart-7: Another rlimit } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } >} RLIMIT_PTHREAD The maximum number of threads (pthreads(5)) } > } >The "ulimit -a" command should report this; same for "sockbufsize". } } Should it? There are several limits that ulimit can't set; I intuitively } feel that it should be reporting only the same set of limits that it } can set. I wondered about that, but it was already reporting several limits that it can't set (address space, cached threads, AIO operations and memory) so there didn't seem to be any point in leaving out these two. } Btw, the name "maxpthreads" seems sub-optimal -- what's wrong with } "maxthreads"? I went back and forth on that. Eventually I left in the "p" because there are other threading systems than POSIX threads and it's conceivable that a system might have limits for more than one. E.g., is the "cachedthreads" limit related to POSIX threads? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com