On 05/28/11 07:48 AM, Ben Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Apostolos Syropoulos
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Alan Coopersmith has posted the following in his blog:
>>
>> http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc/entry/there_i_fixed_it
>>
>>
>> The question is why FD_SETSIZE takes the value 65536 in the 64bit model?
>
> I would assume that whoever changed did not understand the implications
> of changing FD_SETSIZE from 1024 to 65536. Source code revision history
> may indicate why
I bet Tim Marsland had a much deeper understanding than either you or I do.
select() is a horrible API, but so much software still uses it that we're
stuck with it, and I do remember complaints before that the system couldn't
handle programs that needed more than 1024 fd's.
>> What would happen if the default value would be, say, 2048?
>
> Sounds like a reasonable value, and represents 64MB of cache,
> as opposed to 2G for 65536 FDs.
Most programs don't allocate 32k per FD_SETSIZE entry like xscope did.
In select masks, they just take one bit.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
_______________________________________________
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
