The vendor feels that they have not coded a specific limit; I'm wondering if
in cases like this, I tend to do things like replace the license
manager by a script that first does "ulimit -a" before execing
the actual program. if the license manager is being execed through
su to run unprivileged, for instance, it's not always obvious whether
some ulimit is in effect. similarly, I often cut to the chase and
run such a daemon under strace, to see what it's doing that fails.
128-clients is such a low number that it doesn't sound like something
more exotic like an ephemeral-port-range limit. 128 is remarkably low,
though - you'd expect a multi-connection daemon might burn one fd
per connection, but even a very desktop-y setting of NOFILE to 1024
would imply that the daemon is keeping ~8 fd's open per connection.
it's file descriptors or somesuch. I raised the limit of FDs on the system
to 65000+ and verified that the change took effect; no change to the
the system-wide (/proc/sys) setting is not likely to be the issue.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
are you aware that this nonsense has _no_ legal standing?
regards, mark hahn.
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
