Hi!
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:46:59AM -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
> > 1. Does anyone use the maxusers=0 parm? If so is it safe, ie does it
> > dynamicly set maxusers on-the-fly, or does it only set at boot time
based on
> > the current number of users?
> Yes and Yes, the setting is assigned at b
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:46:59AM -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
> 1. Does anyone use the maxusers=0 parm? If so is it safe, ie does it
> dynamicly set maxusers on-the-fly, or does it only set at boot time based on
> the current number of users?
Yes and Yes, the setting is assigned at boot time and depe
At 11:44 AM 8.13.2003 -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
>Kewl,
>
>Thanks for all the help thus far.
>
>On both my productive machines, I have set maxopenfiles to 8192 for the
>short term. (Kernel rebuilding wiats until 0300 AM :-).
>
>I found maxusers is read only and can only be set at boot time.
>
>Now, O
At 11:44 AM 8.13.2003 -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
>Kewl,
>
>Thanks for all the help thus far.
>
>On both my productive machines, I have set maxopenfiles to 8192 for the
>short term. (Kernel rebuilding wiats until 0300 AM :-).
>
>I found maxusers is read only and can only be set at boot time.
>
>Now, O
Hi all,
I have one maching that is an internet server, it is fairly new and has
maxusers set to 132. This morning for the first time, I noticed 'Too many
open files in system' on this machine for the first time. As far as I can
tell, cron was the only process that crapped out and dumped.
I have b
Kewl,
Thanks for all the help thus far.
On both my productive machines, I have set maxopenfiles to 8192 for the
short term. (Kernel rebuilding wiats until 0300 AM :-).
I found maxusers is read only and can only be set at boot time.
Now, One machine is FBSD 4.4 and the other is 4.8.
I can't use
At 03:55 PM 8.13.2003 +0100, Jez Hancock wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:46:59AM -0400, Grant Peel wrote:
>> 1. Does anyone use the maxusers=0 parm? If so is it safe, ie does it
>> dynamicly set maxusers on-the-fly, or does it only set at boot time
based on
>> the current number of users?
>Yes a