Am 14.06.24 um 14:13 schrieb Mourad De Clerck:
PSA: as of systemd/256~rc3-3 the open file descriptors hard limit is
bumped early at boot from 1048576 to the max value that the kernel
allows, which on amd64 is currently 1073741816.
Hi,
It seems some proprietary software (the JetBrains IDEs) has
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 13:21, Mourad De Clerck wrote:
>
> > PSA: as of systemd/256~rc3-3 the open file descriptors hard limit is
> > bumped early at boot from 1048576 to the max value that the kernel
> > allows, which on amd64 is currently 1073741816.
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems some proprietary software
PSA: as of systemd/256~rc3-3 the open file descriptors hard limit is
bumped early at boot from 1048576 to the max value that the kernel
allows, which on amd64 is currently 1073741816.
Hi,
It seems some proprietary software (the JetBrains IDEs) has some
problems with this change.
See for inst
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 06:39:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > I believe the change Luca describes is increasing rlim_max (hard limit)
> > but not rlim_cur (soft limit), and the code touched by that patch is
> > looking at rlim_cur, so it should be unaffect
Simon McVittie writes:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 at 18:39:15 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Something did, because inn would start reporting ~1G available fds and
>> then explode, and that patch solved the issue. :-)
> It might be worthwhile to try to track down what larger component did
> this, beca
On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 at 18:39:15 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > I believe the change Luca describes is increasing rlim_max (hard limit)
> > but not rlim_cur (soft limit), and the code touched by that patch is
> > looking at rlim_cur, so it should be unaffected any
On Jun 06, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I believe the change Luca describes is increasing rlim_max (hard limit)
> but not rlim_cur (soft limit), and the code touched by that patch is
> looking at rlim_cur, so it should be unaffected anyway - unless some larger
> component is raising rlim_cur.
Somethin
On Thu, 06 Jun 2024 at 15:21:22 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > The last time this was tried some packages were still not ready, so it
> > was patched out to let them be fixed.
>
> I missed the venerable inn 1.x at the time, and I never noticed that it
> allocates
On Jun 06, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> The last time this was tried some packages were still not ready, so it
> was patched out to let them be fixed. Enough time has passed now, and
> it's time to let any unknown leftover just break and be fixed. In all
> known cases, the buggy pattern was to manually
9 matches
Mail list logo
