AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070205164911.48ae48dc@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0250296F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:49:25 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Jonathan Goldick" <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Question on our BSD
Message-ID: <20070205164925.0e8df5d2@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0250296F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0250296F@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thx.
