Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:24:24 +0100 | Subject | Re: [patch 016/104] epoll: introduce resource usage limits | From | Bastien ROUCARIES <> |
| |
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:47:45PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:16 -0800, "Greg KH" <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: >> > > This is a kvm virtual machine running on a reasonably beefy external box, but >> > > with 2Gb RAM allocated to the mx instance because that's all kvm would let me >> > > use last time I checked. We're using KVM so the local copy of the database is >> > > a little further away from the "internet facing side" and so we can build each >> > > machine with our standard FAI setup. >> > >> > I would suggest just changing this default value then, it's a simple >> > userspace configuration item, and for your boxes, it sounds like a >> > larger value would be more suitable. >> >> Yes - I've pushed it up to 4096 now. Should be plenty! >> >> I guess Postfix is a bit of an odd case here. It runs lots of processes, yet >> uses epoll within many of them as well - sort of a historical design in some ways, >> but also to enforce maximum privilege separation with many of the daemons able to >> be run under chroot with limited capabilities. >> >> So I guess I have a few questions left: >> >> 1) is this value ever supposed to be hit in practice by non-malicious software? >> If not, it appears 128 is too low. > > It does appear a bit low. What looks to you like a good value to use as > a default? > >> 2) if we're going to stick with 128, is there any way to query the kernel as to how >> close to the limit it's getting? As an example, our system checks poll >> /proc/sys/fs/file-max every 2 minutes, and warn us if its getting "full". > > Good idea, we should report this somewhere for the very reasons you > suggest. Can you write up a patch to do this? If not, I'll see what I > can do.
Why not using a ulimit for this kind of stuff ?
Regards
Bastien
| |