>I'm also not a OS dev >cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking >to get a grasp on what the limit >could be? >YOU are the OS in your example, and you >would know the limit when you would do >curls slower and maybe you would get more >and more pain.. >and crash in your example would be your >muscle being in such pain you wouldn't >be able to do anything with your >arm/whatever
So your body automatically benchmarks how many bicep curls you can do in an hour without you having to think about it? You use your body to measure the bicep curls it can do, it doesn’t automatically do that. You can use your OS to perform the benchmark, but to expect the OS to designate resources automatically to benchmark itself is equal portions naïve and obtuse. You have a very specific use-case, you should do the work to find your answer. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:20 AM <beecdadd...@danwin1210.de> wrote: > I'm also not a OS dev > cannot the OS do some testing/benchmarking to get a grasp on what the limit > could be? > YOU are the OS in your example, and you would know the limit when you > would do > curls slower and maybe you would get more and more pain.. > and crash in your example would be your muscle being in such pain you > wouldn't > be able to do anything with your arm/whatever > > so you're saying the only fucking way to know a true hardware limit is the > worst that could be - a crash??? > what if crash doesn't happen right away? in my case hardware ISP router > could > be limiting the potential of i2pd software or torrenting software > boom corrupted data, processes, uncompleted important work, lost important > work, pain in ass, etc > literally couldn't that corrupt the entire system, a crash? > > tell me I am worrying too much, but even then a crash is the worst thing > someone can rely on, I think it's unprofessional that the OS allows for > that > sort of insecurity > if all you said and I said is correct, I consider that to be a security > vulnerability at least, not to mention other vulnerabilities > > On Tue, January 30, 2024 1:32 pm, Bruce Jagid wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> like I asked and no one answered: where >>>can I check HARD LIMIT of > my > >>>> computer? > >>> > >>> you can't really. you can try increasing >>until you run into problems > > and back > >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what >>else the kernel is doing. > > usual > >>> approach is to restrict the software to >>using the resources that you > > expect it > >>> to actually need and restrict it from making >>more demands than that > to > > orotect > >>> the rest of the system. > > > >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like > playing > >> >cards, you never know when > > you > >> lose (you crash) and no one answered my question yet about >i2pd's > >> connections to other > > routhers > >> with can well surpass 8192 up to +30000 >connections, and if I am right > > then > >> each connection needs a FD? I worked with >networking and programming a > > little, > >> so this makes sense to me can anyone >verify? if yes, then yes this is > a bug > >> and I am >disappointed that the only way is > > to > >> run blindly and trust before crash > > > > I might be out of line here since I’m new to OS dev stuff, but what > you’re > > asking doesn’t really make sense to me. A file descriptor is a software > > abstraction built onto the hardware and the exact implementation changes > from > > case to case dependent on hardware. It’s like if I asked my doctor “give > me > > the exact limit of bicep curls I can do in an hour.” In the same way the > body > > has no conception of a bicep curl(only the fatigue from moving), the > hardware > > doesn’t know what you mean by a file descriptor(only the residual > resources > > needed to maintain one), and there’s like 20 ways of doing a bicep curl, > so > > demanding such a concrete hard limit number makes no sense. > > > > - Bruce > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:52 AM <beecdadd...@danwin1210.de> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, January 30, 2024 11:23 am, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >> > >>> On 2024/01/30 10:53, beecdadd...@danwin1210.de wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I see the confusion I made I am sorry, when I said routers crash I > >>>> meant actual ISP hardware routers. > >>> > >>> For an ISP "customer premises equipment" router (home/officr router)? > >>> That often means you made too many connections and exceeded the size of > >>> NAT/firewall state table that they can cope with. Also for ISPs with > >>> CGN, you might have a limited port-range that you're allowed to use and > >>> can't make more connections once that has been exceeded. > >> > >> is there way to verify it's the 1st thing, which can be fixed by custom > >> router, yes? any computer with 2 NICs can be a OpenBSD router, yes? I > seen > >> people do that, is cool > >> > >>> > >>>> like I asked and no one answered: where can I check HARD LIMIT of my > >>>> computer? > >>> > >>> you can't really. you can try increasing until you run into problems > and > >> back > >>> off a bit, but it probably depends on what else the kernel is doing. > >> usual > >>> approach is to restrict the software to using the resources that you > >> expect it > >>> to actually need and restrict it from making more demands than that to > >> orotect > >>> the rest of the system. > >> > >> this sounds like a bug to me hard limit must be known, else is like > playing > >> cards, you never know when you lose (you crash) and no one answered my > >> question yet about i2pd's connections to other routhers with can well > surpass > >> 8192 up to +30000 connections, and if I am right then > >> each connection needs a FD? I worked with networking and programming a > >> little, so this makes sense to me can anyone verify? if yes, then yes > this is > >> a bug and I am disappointed that the only way is to run blindly and > trust > >> before crash > >> > >>> > >>>> what it depends on, on CPU? where is utility that shows max FDs, and > >>>> per-running-process FD usage and their max setting? if this does not > >> exist, > >>>> I think why not? > >>>> I think if user has to manually set FD limits and know potential of > >>>> > >> programs > >>>> and OpenBSD and hardware, where is utility to help with that? I did > >> search > >>>> on the internet, all shit.. > >>> > >>> fstat shows per-process FD use, but the kernel backend for it is a bit > >> buggy > >>> and can sometimes crash the kernel, so it is best to avoid running it > on > >> an > >>> important system. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> oh really I probably cannot verify the usage of I2Pd if it exceeds 8192 > >> because my router goes stupid and crashes, can you? if you can't I'll > give it > >> a try, please tell me if you can.. I would try increasing bandwidth > speed to > >> X and transit tunnels to maybe 10k, try with > >> afloodfill maybe, too.. because even many tunnels - there can be many > to 1 > >> i2pd peer(i2pd router) which translates to 1 FD, right? and if you go > to web > >> console of i2pd and go to Transit Tunnels tab, you can see => [some > number > >> like ID] 5.0 KiB, and then you see more of same, but the arrow '=>' is > not > >> there, so that maybe indicates it's the same peer/i2pd router that the > >> following tunnels are to/from.. most have 1 tunnel, some have 6 > tunnels, a > >> lot have 2 tunnels > >> > >> but I am not getting FD count with fstat, the number is not the same > with > >> 'Routers' in web console of i2pd, so maybe I was wrong > >> or maybe i2pd recycles FDs to be much better at efficiency so it has > Routers > >> stored addresses somewhere, and makes connections only if needed (which > take > >> up FD spots) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - best regards, I like talking to you, you care about this and want to > >> help, it can be seen > >> > >> > > > > >
