On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:06:06 -0800 (PST) Dianne Marie Montesa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi list > > it just so happen that i am currently researching > about threads-max when i saw this thread on my mails. > the internet sources say the computation for > thread-max is > > ((RAM * 1024 * 1024) /8192)/2 > > check out: > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3814 > > however, on actual experience, i have a web/java > server with 2 GB RAM and the default thread-max set is > only 32768. if i should use the computation above it > would be way more than 32768. This holds with the one thing I did find on the net. Apperently this is new to the 2.4 kernel and has a Theoretical limit of 32768. I would guess that this means it hasn't been tested above this limit. And thanks loads for the link and info. James > > it seems that it is assumed (by the kernel developers) > that 512 MB RAM is the max RAM which is why even if i > have more than 512 MB, my thread-max was set to 32768. > or maybe they think that 32768 is the max that is > still workable for the linux OS. i really dont have > any idea about that. > > im not sure how its gonna affect the system by setting > the max thread to the computed value or at least > double the current default. anyway, i am gonna make > some tests to see if its gonna make the java apps > perform better or if its gonna kill it. > > hope the info above sheds light on your queries about > the computation. > > cheers, > dianne > > --- damian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > El vie, 15-03-2002 a las 16:52, James escribi_: > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:47:14 -0500 > > > Bill Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Now I'm curious. How did you find that out? > > > > > > I looked into /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max the > > number was 3063 (I hadn't set anything here and was > > curious so this is a stock number) Then since my > > ram was larger and the stock number was larger I > > divided 3063 by 384 and came up with (rounded) 7.98 > > when I did 1024 divided by 128 I got 8 so I assumed > > (lousy idea but I did it anyway) that the ratio is > > around 8 x ram = number in > > /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max. > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Friday 15 March 2002 03:49 am, James wrote: > > > > > Raffaele, > > > > > Your letter is one of those that peeks > > curiosity. I looked at my box > > > > > (running 384 megs) and found that the number > > was 3063 you said you had > > > > > 128 megs and 1024 ... The ratio seems to be > > about 8xram in megs .... > > > > > don't know what this means or why it's set to > > this but maybe this will > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:52:14 +0100 > > > > > > > > > > Raffaele Belardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I had problems running a fairly big applet > > in the Forte for Java 3.0 > > > > > > with JSDK 1.3.1: the IDE started ok, but > > when I tried to execute the > > > > > > applet I got an "out of memory" error (on a > > 128Mbyte machine). > > > > > > > > > > > > I found out that for some reason the > > threads-max kernel tunable was > > > > > > set to 1024, which turns out to be too small > > for the IDE. [is this a > > > > > > default for MDK 8.1, or was it changed when > > I played with the security > > > > > > things?] > > > > > > > > > > > > Changing to 32K with > > > > > > # echo 32768 > /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max > > > > > > fixed the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > bye, > > > > > > > > > > > > raffaele - italy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well i'm using 192 MB ram and my threads.max is > > 3071...? > > > > Damian > > > > > > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from > MandrakeSoft? > > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage > http://sports.yahoo.com/ > >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
