On 18.04.2018 11:08, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've recently updated to a NetBSD built on April 3rd. In my latest bulk
> builds I noticed
>
> /netbsd: file: table is full - increase kern.maxfiles or MAXFILES
>
> It was around 3700, I've bumped it to 8000.
>
> I wonder why I needed to
f...@netbsd.org (Erik Fair) writes:
>We (NetBSD) still have a historical construct in config(5) that a bunch of
>system-wide limits like MAXFILES are calculated from a presumed average or
>median amount of those resources per user, expressed as multiples of
>âmaxusers [n]â in config(5).
We (NetBSD) still have a historical construct in config(5) that a bunch of
system-wide limits like MAXFILES are calculated from a presumed average or
median amount of those resources per user, expressed as multiples of “maxusers
[n]” in config(5).
We may wish to survey typical applications now
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:10:37AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > Did anyone else notice something similar?
>
> Check with fstat(1) ?
Good idea. Right now, the top ones seem nearly ok:
# fstat | sed "s/ [0-9].*$//" | sort |
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I've recently updated to a NetBSD built on April 3rd. In my latest bulk builds
I noticed
/netbsd: file: table is full - increase kern.maxfiles or MAXFILES
It was around 3700, I've bumped it to 8000.
I wonder why I needed to do that though.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:08:49AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Did anyone else notice something similar?
Check with fstat(1) ?
Martin
Hi!
I've recently updated to a NetBSD built on April 3rd. In my latest bulk builds
I noticed
/netbsd: file: table is full - increase kern.maxfiles or MAXFILES
It was around 3700, I've bumped it to 8000.
I wonder why I needed to do that though. Did something start using
more file descriptors,
