Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: >Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:43:19 -0800 (PST) >From: Mr. James W. Laferriere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Matt Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Subject: Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time? > > > Hello Matt , At what uptime does one hit this limit ? >uptime > 4:40am up 444 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 >uname -a >Linux filesrv2 2.2.6 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 20:33:30 PDT 1999 i686 unknown > > Not that that is anything spectacular , just looking for > rough idea of uptime before hitting the NR_TASKS limit . > Tia , JimL The NR_TASKS is the maximum number of simultaneous running processes in the system and has nothing at all to do whatsoever with the uptime. In 2.2.x NR_TASKS is set in stone during compile time. If you need more simultaneous tasks you must recompile with NR_TASKS set higher. You can set it as high as 4090 or so (read the docs). In 2.4.x it can be set via proc at runtime. Again, uptime means absolutely nothing. -- Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Free Software advocate This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved. Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer. -- If you're interested in computer security, and want to stay on top of the latest security exploits, and other information, visit: http://www.securityfocus.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:43:19 -0800 (PST) From: Mr. James W. Laferriere [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Matt Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time? Hello Matt , At what uptime does one hit this limit ? uptime 4:40am up 444 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 uname -a Linux filesrv2 2.2.6 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 20:33:30 PDT 1999 i686 unknown Not that that is anything spectacular , just looking for rough idea of uptime before hitting the NR_TASKS limit . Tia , JimL The NR_TASKS is the maximum number of simultaneous running processes in the system and has nothing at all to do whatsoever with the uptime. In 2.2.x NR_TASKS is set in stone during compile time. If you need more simultaneous tasks you must recompile with NR_TASKS set higher. You can set it as high as 4090 or so (read the docs). In 2.4.x it can be set via proc at runtime. Again, uptime means absolutely nothing. -- Mike A. Harris - Linux advocate - Free Software advocate This message is copyright 2001, all rights reserved. Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer. -- If you're interested in computer security, and want to stay on top of the latest security exploits, and other information, visit: http://www.securityfocus.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
At 04:43 -0800 Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: > Hello Matt , At what uptime does one hit this limit ? >uptime > 4:40am up 444 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 >uname -a >Linux filesrv2 2.2.6 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 20:33:30 PDT 1999 i686 unknown > > Not that that is anything spectacular , just looking for > rough idea of uptime before hitting the NR_TASKS limit . up 244 days, 4:38, 57 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.16 Linux version 2.2.16 gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release) #1 SMP Thu Jun 8 09:40:14 BST 2000 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
Hello Matt , At what uptime does one hit this limit ? uptime 4:40am up 444 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 uname -a Linux filesrv2 2.2.6 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 20:33:30 PDT 1999 i686 unknown Not that that is anything spectacular , just looking for rough idea of uptime before hitting the NR_TASKS limit . Tia , JimL On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Matt Bernstein wrote: > I note that include/linux/tasks.h contains #define NR_TASKS 512 > > Can I tune this at run-time? My lovely server's been up since the day > 2.2.16 was released, and now having hit the limit I don't want to reboot :) > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
I note that include/linux/tasks.h contains #define NR_TASKS 512 Can I tune this at run-time? My lovely server's been up since the day 2.2.16 was released, and now having hit the limit I don't want to reboot :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: increasing the 512 process limit at run-time?
Hello Matt , At what uptime does one hit this limit ? uptime 4:40am up 444 days, 12:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 uname -a Linux filesrv2 2.2.6 #1 SMP Thu Jul 1 20:33:30 PDT 1999 i686 unknown Not that that is anything spectacular , just looking for rough idea of uptime before hitting the NR_TASKS limit . Tia , JimL On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Matt Bernstein wrote: I note that include/linux/tasks.h contains #define NR_TASKS 512 Can I tune this at run-time? My lovely server's been up since the day 2.2.16 was released, and now having hit the limit I don't want to reboot :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ++ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | NetworkEngineer | 25416 22nd So | Give me Linux | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DesMoines WA 98198 | only on AXP | ++ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
