[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

ulimit question



Hello all,
I've been chasing a bug around, trying to figure out what's causing
it.  When I am in console mode ulimit -a shows:
core file size        (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size         (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size             (blocks, -f) unlimited
max locked memory     (kbytes, -l) unlimited
max memory size       (kbytes, -m) unlimited
open files                    (-n) 1024
pipe size          (512 bytes, -p) 8
stack size            (kbytes, -s) 8192
cpu time             (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes            (-u) 2559
virtual memory        (kbytes, -v) unlimited

However, when I am in an X session, ulimit -a (from an Eterm, but is
the same in an xterm, kterm, etc.) shows:
core file size        (blocks, -c) 0
data seg size         (kbytes, -d) unlimited
file size             (blocks, -f) 100000
max locked memory     (kbytes, -l) unlimited
max memory size       (kbytes, -m) unlimited
open files                    (-n) 1024
pipe size          (512 bytes, -p) 8
stack size            (kbytes, -s) 8192
cpu time             (seconds, -t) unlimited
max user processes            (-u) 256
virtual memory        (kbytes, -v) unlimited

Notice in particular the file size and max user processes.  Odd, I
thought, and grep'ing for ulimit both through /etc/ and ~/ don't turn
up anything.  I am running a mix of sid and woody, on a 2.4.18 kernel
(with CONFIG_QUOTA unset, no less).  My X session is sawfish & gnome,
and I use KDM as a login manager.  I am at a loss, as I can't find any
mention of ulimit, sigxfsz, rlimit, or anything else in the various
places I've looked.  
Somebody, please smack me with the clue bat, as this is preenting me
from getting some things done when in an X session, and is mildly
annoying.

Thanks in advance,
Steve
-- 
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex
facts.  Seek simplicity and distrust it.
		-- Whitehead.

Attachment: pgpGouustZ9Wy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: