Subject: Re: Increasing SHMMAXPGS
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <email@example.com>
Date: 05/19/2002 18:52:44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:31:55PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> David Brownlee <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > We default to SHMMAXPGS=3D1024, which seems rather small given this
> > is the maximum limit and changes to it shouldn't affect the amount
> > of memory in use unless an application takes advantage of a higher
> > limit.
> > Ogle (to give an example) likes a SHMMAXPGS of 16384.
> > Would anyone object to increasing the default to 16384 for all
> > platforms?
> Yes. SHMMAXPGS should be nuked from orbit -- it should dynamically
> size itself. (We should also somehow garbage collect segments that are
> no longer associated with running processes.)
Uhm - but those could be accessed later by a new process, can't they?
seal your e-mail: http://www.gnupg.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----