mwz@kaffa.anu.oz.au (Markus Zellner) (10/02/90)
I am running a program that requires (in certain tests) 64 xterms or XView shelltools to be open at the same time. When I try and run this program under the standard MIT X server, I get a message along the lines of "too many connections". I have RTFMed the man pages and there doesn't seem to be any way short of recompiling the server to increase the number of connections the X server is allowed to make. What I want to know is whether this connection limit (which seems to be set at 64 at the moment) can be increased, and if so how. If it means server recompilation, the locations of the files and what need to be changed in them would be much appreciated (I had a look and couldn't find anything obvious). -- Markus Zellner | Phd Student | mwz@anucsd.anu.oz.au
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (10/04/90)
> I am running a program that requires (in certain tests) 64 xterms or > XView shelltools to be open at the same time. When I try and run > this program under the standard MIT X server, I get a message along > the lines of "too many connections". I have RTFMed the man pages and > there doesn't seem to be any way short of recompiling the server to > increase the number of connections the X server is allowed to make. I don't think there is. The basic problem is that it's running out of file descriptors. > What I want to know is whether this connection limit (which seems to > be set at 64 at the moment) can be increased, and if so how. If it > means server recompilation, the locations of the files and what need > to be changed in them would be much appreciated (I had a look and > couldn't find anything obvious). I remember commenting here that the server really should be capable of forking a multiplexor process when necessary. The only response was a snarky message saying something like "no, the proper solution is to upgrade to a real operating system" - meaning a release that supports more than 30 file descriptors. Apparently even "real" operating systems are too limiting for some applications. Anyway, I found the same problem (only more severe) when using the server with xdm under Sun release 3.5 (which has a maximum of more like 30). So I did hack in a multiplexor subprocess. It works, but not particularly well. In particular, it does not know how to fork more than one multiplexor; they are not created on demand. It would need a good deal of work to get it in shape for general use. Also, there is currently a limit of (I think) 128 clients somewhere in the dix layer; I didn't look at increasing that. If anyone wants, I can put together the hacks I have and make it available somewhere, but be warned that the result will definitely not be a plug-and-play solution. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) (10/16/90)
In article <mwz.654846064@kaffa>, mwz@kaffa.anu.oz.au (Markus Zellner) writes: > I am running a program that requires (in certain tests) 64 xterms or > XView shelltools to be open at the same time. Since you are talking about XView it is a good bet you are using a Sun (even 'tho XView run on lots of other things). >When I try and run this > program under the standard MIT X server, I get a message along the lines > of "too many connections". I have RTFMed the man pages and there > doesn't seem to be any way short of recompiling the server to increase > the number of connections the X server is allowed to make. > > What I want to know is whether this connection limit (which seems to be > set at 64 at the moment) can be increased, and if so how. If you are running SunOS 4.1 up the soft limit on file descriptors before you start the server (type "limit descriptors 255"), that should let you make alot more connections... If you are running SunOS 4.0 try it anyway. If you are running a truely old version of SunOS, you are SOL. (I advise upgrading, with 4.0 you get shared libs, and they are a *big* win). -- stripes@eng.umd.edu "Security for Unix is like Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Mutitasking for MS-DOS" "The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood "Isn't that a shell script?" - D. MacKenzie "Yeah, kinda sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of a kernel" - K. Lidl