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

Re: ulimit problem



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 07:21:38PM -0600, Darren Dittrich wrote:
> Martin:
> Sorry to bother, but I saw your list post, and I'm shocked that after 
> Googling for the per-user/per-proc ulimit issue, there's very little 
> information to be found! I've got the same problem (although with 
> Apache, mySQL, and other procs), and it would seem there must to be a 
> proper Debian way to handle this.
> If you learn anything, please let me know.

I found out, that thre was a ulimit -n command somewhere hidden in one
of the bash init scripts that I overlooked in the first place.
and if you set ulimit -n down once you ar not alowd to set it back up
again...

the propoer way should be to set it in /etc/security/limits.conf

but the fact that you must not have a ulimit command in your
init-scripts for the mentioned reason is not documented anywhere

> If not, we should perhaps fire an email up the chain to the Debian docs 
> folks?
> 
proper documentation would help :-)

for me it finally worked out to be a real gotcha, but I did not go
deeper into the problems, others might have had (concerning ssh or
others)

regarding apache, mysql, etc. I'd look into the respective init.d/
scripts. grep for ulimit in /etc/init.d/* to s which scripts bring their
own settings

hth
mlo
- -- 
Dipl.-Ing. Martin Lorenz

            They that can give up essential liberty 
	    to obtain a little temporary safety 
	    deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                                   Benjamin Franklin

Microsoft, I think, is fundamentally an evil company. 
 - JAMES H. CLARK 

*** NEW PUBLIC KEY ***
my gpg-key ID: F1AAD37D
http://blackhole.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF1AAD37D

ICQ UIN: 33588107
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB9z2yR1ITOvGq030RAvtdAKCPANzGL6NZyu/sVOAdivgZRz5OvwCdETbS
PIaWztvZnjlJBVEGQYmpoXY=
=Ze5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: