At 07:43 AM 2.4.2003 +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 12:16:23AM -0500, aSe typed:
>> >This is not a matter of diskspace. The kernel holds a fixed length table
>> >in memory with all open files. If this table gets full it usually means 
>> >one of two things:
>> >
>> >1) You have a runaway application, opening way too many files. Identify 
>> >the application and fix or disable it.
>> >
>> >2) You're running a kernel with a too low value for maxusers (which, 
>> >among other things, determines the maximum amount of open files). The 
>> >default in 4.7-RELEASE is 0, which means: optimize according to amount 
>> >of memory installed. The default is usually O.K. If not, one option is
>> >to simply install more memory.
>> 
>> The machine itself runs several logging applications and things of that
>> nature. I didn't think It was an issue with HD. Nor do I believe its ram,
>> It has 512mb installed, and 256mb of swap. As it stands right now it has
>> 270mb free and hasn't touched the swap. Right now maxusers is set to 6, 
>> I didn't realize it would play a role in this instance.
>
>You should set maxusers to 0. That way, it will be sized at boot time 
>according to the amount of memory you installed.
>
>> Jack Stone suggested looking up the number of max open files by doing 
>> "sysctl kern.maxfiles" It returns only "232" which to me seems like a 
>> very small number. He also suggested to change it using 
>> "sysctl -w kern.maxfiles=4160."
>> 
>> My question to you is, does maxusers play more of a role then just
>> the max number of open files. In the long run would it be better to
>> just set maxusers to 0 or just change the kern.maxfiles?
>
>It does. According to tuning(7):
>
>     kern.maxusers controls the scaling of a number of static system tables,
>     including defaults for the maximum number of open files, sizing of net-
>     work memory resources, etc.
>
>You can set maxusers to 0 by either recompiling your kernel or by setting 
>the value in loader.conf(5)
>
>Ruben
>

Yes, the 232 is way too low and setting the max users to "0" in the kernel
is recommended. But, as I suggested, if you "play" with the number by
raising it using the command line in the meantime (before new kernel &
reboot), you will find a point where the problem disappears. I imagine the
arbitrary number of 4160 I gave you will work. My servers have 1GB of RAM
and higher and the lowest number I have is 8192 and some are at 12000+ (my
kernels are set to zero for max users), all ascertained by the system
itself. I've seen other settings suggested, but with the "0" max users
setting in the kernel using FBSD-4.7 (didn't this start at 4.5?), it should
become a non-issue.

Fot those using earlier versions, like FBSD-4.4 and below, using max users
at 32 seems common unless you have some trouble. Then experimenting with
resetting using the command line should take care of it.

Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
Administrator

SageOne Net
http://www.sage-one.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message

Reply via email to