Subject: Re: increasing FD_SETSIZE to 1024 or 2048?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 07/03/2000 20:50:15
In message <20000703202749.Y360@dr-evil.shagadelic.org>Jason R Thorpe writes
>On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 07:53:05PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>Right, the point is "for your work".
The current FD_SETSIZE limit may be satisfactory for *your*
workload. That doesn't mean its satisfactory in general.
The Linux value for FD_SETSIZE (1024) suggest that 256
is not entirely adqeuate for other workloads, as well.
>However, the claim that it
>is insufficient for modern systems (as you, in fact, claimed)
I don't think so. Even the two datapoints that it's not
adequate for two workloads I know about disproves that.
If its really such an onerous overhead (which I don't buy):
what d'you think of buliding, say, named with a larger FD_SETSIZE?
So that "files 1024" or "files 2048" works as expected?