2011/8/19 Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com>: > file descriptors a usually more constrained so I'd > lean towards using more memory.
Of course for fts, it's possible to take an adaptive strategy also. If at any time, fts fails to open a directory with ENFILE, it can check the parent directories; examining only the directories which are still open, it can pick the one with the smallest filesize, finish reading the directory entries of the ancestor and therefore call closedir on it, and then resume its attempt to open a directory now tha ta file descriptor has been freed. Of course this would add significant code complexity and deal only with a case that will be quite rare. So I'm not suggesting we implement it, just suggesting that we need not be forced into accepting any specific limit here. James. -- This email is intended solely for the use of its addressee, sender, and any readers of a mailing list archive in which it happens to appear. If you have received this email in error, please say or type three times, "I believe in the utility of email disclaimers," and then reply to the author correcting any spellings (and, optionally, any incorrect spellings), accompanying these with humorous jests about the author's parentage. If you are not the addressee, you are nevertheless permitted to both copy and forward this email since without such permissions email systems are unable to transmit email to anybody, intended recipient or not. To those still reading by this point, the author would like to apologise for being unable to maintain a consistent level of humour throughout this disclaimer. Contents may settle during transit. Do not feed the animals.