Subject: Re: increasing FD_SETSIZE to 1024 or 2048?
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Greywolf <>
List: current-users
Date: 07/04/2000 12:25:10
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jonathan Stone wrote:

# In message <>Todd Vi
# erling writes
# >On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Jonathan Stone wrote:
# >
# >Those are your apps, which have every right in the world to change
# >FD_SETSIZE at its own whim.  The standards say that you could, if you want,
# >make it 1048576!
# named is not "my app".
# >What you need to show to make this argument is a reasonable place in
# >NetBSD-supplied binaries where this would be anything but a performance
# >penalty.
# How about you offer to start *reading* the argument, and drop the strawmen?
# And how quatntitative an argument do you expect?
# (how quantitativbe do you think the choice of 256 was?)


What are you doing with your named that is so special that it requires
a modification that no other shop of consequence of which knowledge has
appeared to me has found necessary to implement?  Are you running a
single centralized named instead of doing the sane thing which is,
more or less, load balancing with several servers?

I've been with Autodesk (big) and Fujitsu (bigger), and the only name-
server problems I have run into are brand new misconfigurations during
an upgrade (which were pilot error and easily corrected).  I've been at
Cypress Semi, and while their named layout made no sense to me, it worked,
and there was no need to seriously tweak the number of open files.

Now either these sites are all lucky as hell, or they planned what they
were doing.  Judging by that which you posit, you fall into neither
category (and I'm not attempting to be insulting, here -- not my preferred
mode of operation), which begs the original question of What Are You Doing?

BSD: Unix With Balls.