On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 16:47:01 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 04/20/14 16:28, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > ok that's why then. So the only thing I need, if anything, is further
> > confirmation that increasing it on F17 would not cause problems. I'll
> > wait until tomorrow for further comments and then
On Apr 20, 2014 6:46 PM, "Ed Greshko" wrote:
>
> On 04/20/14 20:51, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> >
> > The value of fs.inotify.max_user_watches was increased in F18, and
later releases, due to this bug[1] in nepomuk. It's configured by
/usr/lib/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf which is insta
On 04/20/14 21:38, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> /usr/lib/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf is included in the
> initramfs by dracut when a kernel is installed/updated. Check `lsinitrd
> /boot/initramfs-$(uname -r).img | grep sysctl`.
>
> So in effect you'd have to re-create the initramfs aft
On 20 April 2014 15:15, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 04/20/14 20:51, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> >
> > The value of fs.inotify.max_user_watches was increased in F18, and later
> releases, due to this bug[1] in nepomuk. It's configured by
> /usr/lib/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf which is insta
On 04/20/14 20:51, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>
> The value of fs.inotify.max_user_watches was increased in F18, and later
> releases, due to this bug[1] in nepomuk. It's configured by
> /usr/lib/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf which is installed by
> nepomuk-core, so ideally you'd get th
On 04/20/14 20:51, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> The value of fs.inotify.max_user_watches was increased in F18, and later
> releases, due to this bug[1] in nepomuk. It's configured by
> /usr/lib/sysctl.d/97-kde-nepomuk-filewatch-inotify.conf which is installed by
> nepomuk-core, so ideally you'd get that
On 20 April 2014 10:28, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 16:24:08 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> > On 04/20/14 15:08, M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> > FWIW, everything I've seen indicates this value is not calculated
> > but configured when the kernel is compiled. I just happen to have
> > an ol
On 04/20/14 16:28, M. Fioretti wrote:
> ok that's why then. So the only thing I need, if anything, is further
> confirmation that increasing it on F17 would not cause problems. I'll
> wait until tomorrow for further comments and then "risk" the increase
> :-)
FWIW, I just made the change in /etc/s
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 16:24:08 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 04/20/14 15:08, M. Fioretti wrote:
> FWIW, everything I've seen indicates this value is not calculated
> but configured when the kernel is compiled. I just happen to have
> an old F17 disk and created a VM. As expected, it is set to
On 04/20/14 15:08, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 14:40:07 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> One "silly" question.
>>
>> What version of Fedora are you running. I found a message on the
>> mailing lists back in 2010 which, from a reliable source, indicated
> this is happening
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 14:40:07 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> One "silly" question.
>
> What version of Fedora are you running. I found a message on the mailing
> lists back in 2010 which, from a reliable source, indicated
this is happening on an F17 box. It **is** scheduled to be mov
One "silly" question.
What version of Fedora are you running. I found a message on the mailing
lists back in 2010 which, from a reliable source, indicated
> > > kde packagers received a request to consider shipping systems with a
> > > higher (default) value of
> > > /proc/sys/fs
On 04/20/14 14:09, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 14:11:24 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> I don't know how the system sets this value. 8192 seems rather small to me.
> good point, thanks. This, in fact, is a side question that I forgot to
> ask in my original email: what are the criteri
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 14:11:24 PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
> I don't know how the system sets this value. 8192 seems rather small to me.
good point, thanks. This, in fact, is a side question that I forgot to
ask in my original email: what are the criteria or rule of thumb to
calculate which val
On 04/20/14 13:49, M. Fioretti wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> a while ago, I noticed that on my Fedora box digiKam would not load
> and display picture galleries anymore, and when launched from the
> prompt would produce this message:
>
> digikam(14981)/digikam (core): Reached inotify limit
>
> which IIUC
Greetings,
a while ago, I noticed that on my Fedora box digiKam would not load
and display picture galleries anymore, and when launched from the
prompt would produce this message:
digikam(14981)/digikam (core): Reached inotify limit
which IIUC means this is a general problem on that computer, no
16 matches
Mail list logo
