Subject: Re: increasing FD_SETSIZE to 1024 or 2048?
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 07/03/2000 19:30:08
In message <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Todd Vierling writes:
>If you need more, the standards already tell you how to do so. #define
>FD_SETSIZE to whatever your application desires before including
You've missed the point entirely. Our current FD_SETSIZE is no longer
aequate for current machines. I'm asking to raise it to a more
reasonable value, for *netbsd-supplied binaries* as well as user apps.
>It's that simple.
No, it isn't that simple. (The issue you think you're ansering _is_
that simple, but that's not what I'm asking).
>: Fwiw, Linux ships with FD_SETSIZE = 1024 and has done for years.
>Linux doesn't have a vax port, and hasn't for years.
Oh, come on. Ultrix ran on vaxes. Last I used Ultrix, it had an
FD_SETSIZE of 4096 (and a default max-open count of 64, just as
we do now). This argument isn't credible, lt alone compelling.
Unless you're arguing that IPv6 is also too expensive for these machines?