Subject: Re: increasing FD_SETSIZE to 1024 or 2048?
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/09/2000 10:08:52
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Jonathan Stone wrote:
: That's the problem: recompiling _everything_. Most other unix variants
: for today's hardware ship with FD_SETSIZE (in libc, the rpc library,
: named ...) already set to 1024.
AFAIK, there's nothing in libc other than rpc which is affected by
FD_SETSIZE, and rpc is fixed in stone unless we __RENAME() its symbol
through use of a pointer. (The copy reloc problem, similar to the one
encountered with sys_errlist.)
What I haven't seen yet in this thread is a reason to bump this number up
in a global location, as opposed to one-offs for specific, network-heavy
-- Todd Vierling (email@example.com)