Re: FD Limits

Mark Hemment (markhe@nextd.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:40:59 +0000 (GMT)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Gerd Knorr: "2.0.25 tells me "floppy0: timeout handler died: do fd request""
Previous message: . Tethys : "Re: Printer on fire - I feel like an idiot"
In reply to: Jared Mauch: "Re: FD Limits"

On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Here is a patch of mine to do just what you want. I think it
> is very important to put this patch into the kernel as most modern OS'es
> (Solaris, OSF/1, etc..) have higher limits of at least 1024 per process.
>
> -#define NR_OPEN 256
> +#define NR_OPEN 1024

Agreed, Linux does need higher limits for servers.
Unfortunately, increasing NR_OPEN pushes up the memory overhead per task
(via struct files_struct) - using over 4K (quite a bit over 4K given how
kmalloc() works) - is a bit on the high side for most processes.

For truly dynamic limits, the structure and use of files_struct needs to be
changed. Hmmm, might give this a go...

Regards,
markhe

Next message: Gerd Knorr: "2.0.25 tells me "floppy0: timeout handler died: do fd request""
Previous message: . Tethys : "Re: Printer on fire - I feel like an idiot"
In reply to: Jared Mauch: "Re: FD Limits"