Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:43:36 -0700 (PDT) | From | Glenn Lamb <> | Subject | Re: forking |
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:15:05 -0400 (EDT) > From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> > To: Greg Lindahl <lindahl@cs.virginia.edu> > Cc: Victor Orlikowski <vjo@duke.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: forking > > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Greg Lindahl wrote: > > > > Ok then, we seem to be looking at a 2.2.x problem, what regarding, I > > > don't know. It's not in 2.0.x (I've pushed my box into the 512 range on > > > 2.0.36 and then received the "cannot fork"). Suggestions so far have > > > been memory fragmentation and insufficient procs. Anyone else have > > > ideas? > > > > Actually, I've always had a problem like this on 2.0.x. I have a > > 64-node cluster, and I frequently run scripts which fork 128 processes > > at a time. These scripts occasionally get 'cannot fork', with no > > resource starvation evident... I wrote some test programs but wasn't > > able to get a nice, repeatable behavior. > > I get 501 on my system.
Same program halts for me at ~250. About right since I was running as a non-root user.
Oh, kernel 2.2.6.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |