human body changes: different energy levels, tiredness, soar muscle, andrenaline, weight of curls, type of curl like you said computer has same exact hardware every time unless changed like I mentioned nothing changes most servers have different and changing software programs on it, yes but we are talking about system hard limit, not soft limits, the hard limit should stay the same
of course you're done, you make no sense to me maybe because you know more or you maybe misunderstand me I think this is far too off-topic and not for ports@ but let's end this topic so I can go maybe to tech@ and misc@ On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:39 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: > no, YOU know more or less based on earlier curls, just like YOU know more or > less based on other programs you’ve run on your OS. And that guess would be > incredibly inaccurate. You can’t just ask for a concrete hard limit and then > relax the conditions such that it becomes a guesstimate. You don’t even > believe your own bs, I’m done arguing. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:33 AM <beecdadd...@danwin1210.de> wrote: > > >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 3:25 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: >> >>>> I'm also not a OS dev >>>> cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking >to get a grasp on what the >>> limit >>>> could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you >would know the limit >>>> >> when >>>> you >>> would do >>>> curls slower and maybe you would get more >and more pain.. and crash in >>>> >> your >>>> example would be your >muscle being in such pain you >>> wouldn't >>>> be able to do anything with your >arm/whatever >>> >>> So your body automatically benchmarks how many bicep curls you can do in >>> >> an >>> hour without you having to think about it? You use your body to measure >> the >>> bicep curls it can do, it doesn’t automatically do that. You can use >> your OS >>> to perform the benchmark, but to expect the OS to designate resources >>> automatically to benchmark itself is equal portions naïve and obtuse. >> You have >> >>> a very specific use-case, you should do the work to find your answer. >> >> it can know limit more-less, yes, based on earlier curls >> >> maybe not automatically, but having a utility that does this for you and you >> can run it once after each hardare change to find out, but I am not sure >> you say it depends on use-case, I do not understand what you mean >> >> if you read my earlier replies, you would find out that I said I already >> tried searching online for like 1 hour, there is some sort of crazy formula >> one dude did a lot of math, snipets from code, is that what you mean? because >> what you say sound like there are multiple types of FDs, maybe network FDs >> and normal FDs? >> >> - best regards >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20 AM <beecdadd...@danwin1210.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm also not a OS dev >>>> cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the >> limit >>>> could be? YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit >> when >>>> you would do curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. >> and >>>> crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you >> wouldn't be >>>> able to do anything with your arm/whatever >>>> >>>> so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is >> the >>>> worst that could be - a crash??? what if crash doesn't happen right >> away? in >>>> my case hardware ISP router could be limiting the potential of i2pd >> software >>>> or torrenting software boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted >> important >>>> work, lost important work, pain in ass, etc literally couldn't that >> corrupt >>>> the entire system, a crash? >>>> >>>> tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst >>>> thing someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS >>>> allows for >> that >>>> sort of insecurity if all you said and I said is correct, I consider >> that >>>> to be a security vulnerability at least, not to mention other >>>> vulnerabilities >>>> >>>> On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD >>>>>>>> LIMIT >>>>>>>> of >>>> my >>>>>>>> computer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into >>>>>>> problems >>>>> and back >>>>>>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is >>>>>>> doing. >>>>> usual >>>>>>> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources >>>>>>> that you >>>>> expect it >>>>>>> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>> to >>>>> orotect >>>>>>> the rest of the system. >>>>> >>>>>> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like >>>>>> >>>> playing >>>>>>> cards, you never know when >>>>> you >>>>>> lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's >>>>>> connections to other >>>>> routhers >>>>>> with can well surpass 8192 up to +30000 >connections, and if I am >> right >>>>>> >>>>> then >>>>>> each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and >>>>>> programming >> a >>>>>> >>>>> little, >>>>>> so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? if yes, then yes this >>>>>> is >>>> a bug >>>>>> and I am >disappointed that the only way is >>>>> to >>>>>> run blindly and trust before crash >>>>> >>>>> I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what >>>>> >>>>> >>>> you’re >>>>> asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a >>>>> software abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact >>>>> implementation >> changes >>>> from >>>>> case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor >> “give >> >>>> me >>>>> the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way >> the >>>> body >>>>> has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the >>>> hardware >>>>> doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual >>>> resources >>>>> needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep >> curl, >>>> so >>>>> demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. >>>>> >>>>> - Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM <beecdadd...@danwin1210.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers >>>>>>>> crash I meant actual ISP hardware routers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr >>>>>>> router)? That often means you made too many connections and >>>>>>> exceeded the size of NAT/firewall state table that they can cope >>>>>>> with. Also for ISPs with CGN, you might have a limited port-range >>>>>>> that you're allowed to use and can't make more connections once >>>>>>> that has been exceeded. >>>>>> >>>>>> is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by >> custom >>>>>> router, yes? any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? >>>>>> I >>>>>> >>>> seen >>>>>> people do that, is cool >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT >>>>>>>> of my computer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into >>>>>>> problems >>>> and >>>>>> back >>>>>>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what else the kernel is >>>>>>> doing. >>>>>> usual >>>>>>> approach is to restrict the software to using the resources that >>>>>>> you >>>>>> expect it >>>>>>> to actually need and restrict it from making more demands than >>>>>>> that to >>>>>> orotect >>>>>>> the rest of the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like >>>>>> >>>> playing >>>>>> cards, you never know when you lose (you crash) and no one answered >>>>>> my question yet about i2pd's connections to other routhers with can >>>>>> well >>>> surpass >>>>>> 8192 up to +30000 connections, and if I am right then >>>>>> each connection needs a FD? I worked with networking and programming >>>>>> a little, so this makes sense to me can anyone verify? if yes, then >>>>>> yes >>>> this is >>>>>> a bug and I am disappointed that the only way is to run blindly and >>>>>> >>>> trust >>>>>> before crash >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what it depends on, on CPU? where is utility that shows max >>>>>>>> FDs, >>>>>>>> and per-running-process FD usage and their max setting? if this >>>>>>>> does not >>>>>> exist, >>>>>>>> I think why not? >>>>>>>> I think if user has to manually set FD limits and know potential >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> programs >>>>>>>> and OpenBSD and hardware, where is utility to help with that? I >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> >>>>>> search >>>>>>>> on the internet, all shit.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fstat shows per-process FD use, but the kernel backend for it is >>>>>>> a bit >>>>>> buggy >>>>>>> and can sometimes crash the kernel, so it is best to avoid >>>>>>> running it >>>>>>> >>>> on >>>>>> an >>>>>>> important system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> oh really I probably cannot verify the usage of I2Pd if it exceeds >> 8192 >> >>>>>> because my router goes stupid and crashes, can you? if you can't >>>>>> I'll >>>>>> >>>> give it >>>>>> a try, please tell me if you can.. I would try increasing bandwidth >>>>>> >>>> speed to >>>>>> X and transit tunnels to maybe 10k, try with >>>>>> afloodfill maybe, too.. because even many tunnels - there can be >>>>>> many >>>> to 1 >>>>>> i2pd peer(i2pd router) which translates to 1 FD, right? and if you >>>>>> go >>>> to web >>>>>> console of i2pd and go to Transit Tunnels tab, you can see => [some >>>>>> >>>> number >>>>>> like ID] 5.0 KiB, and then you see more of same, but the arrow '=>' >>>>>> is >>>> not >>>>>> there, so that maybe indicates it's the same peer/i2pd router that >>>>>> the following tunnels are to/from.. most have 1 tunnel, some have 6 >>>> tunnels, a >>>>>> lot have 2 tunnels >>>>>> >>>>>> but I am not getting FD count with fstat, the number is not the >>>>>> same >>>> with >>>>>> 'Routers' in web console of i2pd, so maybe I was wrong >>>>>> or maybe i2pd recycles FDs to be much better at efficiency so it has >>>>>> >>>> Routers >>>> >>>> >>>>>> stored addresses somewhere, and makes connections only if needed >> (which >> >>>>>> >>>> take >>>>>> up FD spots) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - best regards, I like talking to you, you care about this and want >>>>>> to help, it can be seen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
