X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C74988.C7BB4210@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:50:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Question on our BSD
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:50:21 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02502980@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070205164925.0e8df5d2@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Question on our BSD
Thread-Index: AcdJiKXVQ0D6BYpmQeuhf0ZlXv6xrwAABSgg
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0250296F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20070205164925.0e8df5d2@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Jonathan Goldick" <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

I'll stop over after this staff meeting and give you some history, and
why it's now relevant.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:49 PM
To: Jonathan Goldick
Subject: Re: Question on our BSD

I am not anticipating that there will be any such limit on cougar.  I
didn't know of this for OBSD either, however.  I can't see that there
would be much memory difference between 60-120 processes as far as
Linux is concerned, besided the obvious, which is really quite
neglibible in the grand scheme of things, maybe a few 10s of kilobytes.
Even on a slow processor like the SSC on Bobcat, the scheduling latency
would be less than noise in the grand scheme of things.  Was it really
that bad on OpenBSD?

a



On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:41:52 -0800 "Jonathan Goldick"
<jonathan.goldick@onstor.com> wrote:

> Andy,
>=20
> In the past we have taken pains to reduce the number of processes we
> fork on the SSC due to memory and address-space issues.  Can you find
> a way around the ~60 processes limit?  Consider this a cougar relevant
> question as well.
>=20
> Thx.
