Re: Hard-limits for kern.maxproc
Re: Hard-limits for kern.maxproc
- Subject: Re: Hard-limits for kern.maxproc
- From: Nathan <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:36:18 -0700
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Gallatin <email@hidden> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>
>> I'm running out of political and motivational steam to pursue this
>> issue, as I've worked around the most pressing problems we were
>> experiencing internally. I've canceled most of our plans regarding
>> the Xserve and OS X server, as I no longer have any confidence in
>> Apple's ability to deliver on their marketed server features or
>> capacity. The problem seems to run deeper than just bugs.
>>
>> I will continue to keep an eye out for shifts in the landscape for OS
>> X server. I hope to be proven wrong in the future, and find that OS X
>> Server delivers on its promises.
>
> Many of the resource limits are prompted by the 32-bit nature of
> the current MacOSX kernel. If rumours about 10.6 are to be believed,
> the kernel will be 64-bit. So perhaps it will be safe to raise
> the hard limits in 10.6, and you should take a look at 10.6 when
> it arrives.
>
> Drew
I definitely will take a look at 10.6.
I should also go and file that bug about /etc/rc.server not actually
raising the default process limits according to the amount of RAM your
machine has. That, at least, could actually get fixed as it appears
to be a bug in the implementation of a decision Apple has already
made.
~ Nathan
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden