[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Max cfservd connections
From: |
Mark Burgess |
Subject: |
RE: Max cfservd connections |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:57:55 +0200 |
It is easily removed. It was supposed to be helpful. I shall multiply
the number by ten.
M
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 11:51 -0700, Martin, Jason H wrote:
> Even with a fully loaded Sun F15K with several GigE interfaces and some
> really fast storage?
>
> OK, I wish I had that, but there are all kinds of possibilities :> At a
> minimum the cap should be documented, but preferably removed entirely.
>
> -Jason Martin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Burgess [mailto:Mark.Burgess@iu.hio.no]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:46 AM
> > To: David Masterson
> > Cc: Martin, Jason H; help-cfengine@gnu.org
> > Subject: RE: Max cfservd connections
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone with such a system would be out of their mind to
> > expect a single machine to cope with such a load,
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:52 -0700, David Masterson wrote:
> > > A large system with many network connections in an environment
> > > supporting thousands of machines and (for whatever reason)
> > no use of
> > > SplayTime?
> > >
> > > Also consider the reverse -- a tightly controlled *small*
> > system that
> > > a user wants to severely limit the maxprocesses to prevent
> > runaways,
> > > so he lowers maxprocesses.
> > >
> > > Mark Burgess wrote:
> > > > Fair enough - it was meant to be a silly number. I did not
> > > > anticipate anyone contemplating this. I would be
> > interested to know
> > > > he circumstances in which it is actual to expect 1000 simulaneous
> > > > connections to a single machine.
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:13 -0700, David Masterson wrote:
> > > >> Arbitrary numbers should be configuration items. ;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Mark Burgess wrote:
> > > >>> This is just an arbitrary number. Most systems will not
> > want to go
> > > >>> higher -- but if you do, then change it. M
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 16:14 -0700, Martin, Jason H wrote:
> > > >>>> I'm curious, does anyone know why cfservd is limited to 1000
> > > >>>> concurrent connections?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> From the latest cfservd.c:
> > > >>>> if ((CFD_MAXPROCESSES < 1) || (CFD_MAXPROCESSES >
> > 1000)) {
> > > >>>> FatalError("cfservd MaxConnections with silly
> > value");
> > > >>>> }
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you,
> > > >>>> -Jason Martin
> > >
> >
> >
- Max cfservd connections, Martin, Jason H, 2005/10/17
- RE: Max cfservd connections, David Masterson, 2005/10/18
- RE: Max cfservd connections, David Masterson, 2005/10/18
- RE: Max cfservd connections, Martin, Jason H, 2005/10/18
- RE: Max cfservd connections, Martin, Jason H, 2005/10/18
- RE: Max cfservd connections, Martin, Jason H, 2005/10/18
- RE: Max cfservd connections,
Mark Burgess <=
- RE: Max cfservd connections, Martin, Jason H, 2005/10/18