Anyone with such a system would be out of their mind to expect a single
machine to cope with such a load,
M
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:52 -0700, David Masterson wrote:
> A large system with many network connections in an environment supporting
> thousands of machines and (for whatever reason) no use of SplayTime?
>
> Also consider the reverse -- a tightly controlled *small* system that a user
> wants to severely limit the maxprocesses to prevent runaways, so he lowers
> maxprocesses.
>
> Mark Burgess wrote:
> > Fair enough - it was meant to be a silly number. I did not anticipate
> > anyone contemplating this. I would be interested to know he
> > circumstances in which it is actual to expect 1000 simulaneous
> > connections to a single machine.
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 10:13 -0700, David Masterson wrote:
> >> Arbitrary numbers should be configuration items. ;-)
> >>
> >> Mark Burgess wrote:
> >>> This is just an arbitrary number. Most systems will not want to go
> >>> higher -- but if you do, then change it.
> >>> M
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 16:14 -0700, Martin, Jason H wrote:
> >>>> I'm curious, does anyone know why cfservd is limited to 1000
> >>>> concurrent connections?
> >>>>
> >>>>> From the latest cfservd.c:
> >>>> if ((CFD_MAXPROCESSES < 1) || (CFD_MAXPROCESSES > 1000)) {
> >>>> FatalError("cfservd MaxConnections with silly value");
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> -Jason Martin
>
_______________________________________________
Help-cfengine mailing list
Help-cfengine@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
