From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
Date: | 2000-12-24 00:24:17 |
Message-ID: | 20001223162416.V19572@fw.wintelcom.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001223 14:16] wrote:
> Department of Things that Fell Through the Cracks:
>
> Back in August we had concluded that it is a bad idea to trust
> "sysconf(_SC_OPEN_MAX)" as an indicator of how many files each backend
> can safely open. FreeBSD was reported to return 4136, and I have
> since noticed that LinuxPPC returns 1024. Both of those are
> unreasonably large fractions of the actual kernel file table size.
> A few dozen backends opening hundreds of files apiece will fill the
> kernel file table on most Unix platforms.
getdtablesize(2) on BSD should tell you the per-process limit.
sysconf on FreeBSD shouldn't lie to you.
getdtablesize should take into account limits in place.
later versions of FreeBSD have a sysctl 'kern.openfiles' which
can be checked to see if the system is approaching the systemwide
limit.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-12-24 02:42:45 | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-24 00:05:03 | Re: Re: Too many open files (was Re: spinlock problems reported earlier) |