On 2010-01-13T11:31:01, "Raoul Bhatia [IPAX]" wrote:
> i am talking about elevated (or even reduced) limits which are enforced
> by the os, for example no. of open files/locks/pipes, scheduling
> priority, cpu time, maybe core file size, etc. (see man ulimit, man
> bash or similar).
>
> this cou
hi,
On 01/13/2010 10:22 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> I think what he meant to say was that he does not want to have the
>> > change inside every RA executing the ulimit command but to have some
>> > cluster component (probably lrmd) do that.
> The lrmd does/will/should not process resource paramet
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Dominik Klein wrote:
> Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX]
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2010 10:39 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
>> Why not simply set that for root at boot? (it rhymes too :)
> because i do not like the ide
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX]
> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2010 10:39 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> Why not simply set that for root at boot? (it rhymes too :)
because i do not like the idea that each and every process gets
elevated limits by defa
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 10:39 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
Why not simply set that for root at boot? (it rhymes too :)
>>>
>>> because i do not like the idea that each and every process gets
>>> elevated limits by default.
>>>
>>> i think that t
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43:15AM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 10:39 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> >>> Why not simply set that for root at boot? (it rhymes too :)
> >>
> >> because i do not like the idea that each and every process gets
> >> elevated limits by default.
> >>
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:39:08AM +0100, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2010-01-12 10:21, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> > On 01/11/2010 06:06 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:26:31PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> >>> hi,
> >>>
> >>> i am hitting a nofi
On 01/12/2010 10:39 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
>>> Why not simply set that for root at boot? (it rhymes too :)
>>
>> because i do not like the idea that each and every process gets
>> elevated limits by default.
>>
>> i think that there *should* be a generic way to configure ulimits an a
>> per resour
On 2010-01-12 10:21, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 06:06 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:26:31PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> i am hitting a nofile ulimit (ulimit -n) for my apache server.
>>> adding a "ulimit -n 4096" in the ap
On 01/11/2010 06:06 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:26:31PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> i am hitting a nofile ulimit (ulimit -n) for my apache server.
>> adding a "ulimit -n 4096" in the apache ocf resolves this issue.
>>
>> what would be a more
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:26:31PM +0100, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> hi,
>
> i am hitting a nofile ulimit (ulimit -n) for my apache server.
> adding a "ulimit -n 4096" in the apache ocf resolves this issue.
>
> what would be a more appropriate way to set specific ulimits for
> certain ocf
hi,
i am hitting a nofile ulimit (ulimit -n) for my apache server.
adding a "ulimit -n 4096" in the apache ocf resolves this issue.
what would be a more appropriate way to set specific ulimits for
certain ocf scripts?
cheers,
raoul
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
