stevew@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Williams) (04/11/91)
I'm trying to increase the number of processes on my A/UX 2.0.1 system,
but am having little luck. I used kconfig to increase the total number of
processes (NPROC) to 200 and the maximum number of user processes (MAXUP)
to 100.
Theoretically, rebooting the system should have brought the newly
kconfig'd kernel into use. But I still run out of processes at 50 (which,
coincidentally, is the default value for NPROC according to the manual).
Using kconfig -a to display the NPROC and MAXUP parameters shows the correct
new values, but for some reason they aren't being used.
Is there some further kernel configuration step that needs to be
taken to update NPROC and MAXUP? Or am I doing something else wrong? Help
on this matter would be greatly appreciated (so I don't keep running out of
processes while running X!)
______________________________________________________________________
Stephen Williams stevew@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU
uunet!ucbvax!mammoth!stevew
______________________________________________________________________antonio@Apple.COM (Antonio Ordonez) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.002937.2503@agate.berkeley.edu> stevew@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Williams) writes: > > I'm trying to increase the number of processes on my A/UX 2.0.1 system, >but am having little luck. I used kconfig to increase the total number of >processes (NPROC) to 200 and the maximum number of user processes (MAXUP) >to 100. > I decided to do a follow up instead of private mail since I got the same question on the phone today from a customer of the A/UX Hotline. I increased the values for both variables in my system and both work as expected. He was getting an error "No more processes" or "Killed" when trying to execute a program. If you were running out of entries in the process table the kernel error message would go to the console and give you "proc: table is full" In his case the problem was that he was actually running out of entries in the memory regions table. The reason why the errors weren't seen is that the scripts that he is using to start X11 don't redirect the error messages intented for the console to the X11 console. The scripts included with the XWindow System for A/UX redirect the output correctly. Try doing a tail -f /dev/oldmsgs on the X11 console window and see if you get any error messages there. Hope this helps Antonio -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <disclaimer.h> /* I'll think of a better one later */ Antonio Ordonez amdahl \ Technical Communications/Direct Response Center pyramid!sun - apple!antonio Apple Computer, Inc. (408) 996-1010 decwrl / ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts;) (04/17/91)
In <51433@apple.Apple.COM> antonio@Apple.COM (Antonio Ordonez) writes: >I increased the values for both variables in my system and both work as >expected. He was getting an error > >"No more processes" or "Killed" when trying to execute a program. > >If you were running out of entries in the process table the kernel >error message would go to the console and give you > >"proc: table is full" > >In his case the problem was that he was actually running out of >entries in the memory regions table. The reason why the errors weren't >seen is that the scripts that he is using to start X11 don't redirect >the error messages intented for the console to the X11 console. Ah-ha! Now we're getting somewhere. The message "no more processes" is the traditional mis-leading message associated with error EAGAIN - if you exceeded your per-user process limit it should give EPROCLIM and a message "too many processes". The comment about redirecting the console is true but unhelpful. NO CONSOLE MESSAGE IS GENERATED for filling the regions table, if that is indeed what has happened. I get this kind of message a lot when trying to do thing like make, gcc and so on under a 32-bit session: I'm running startmac -m8m on a Mac IIcx with 4 Meg of real memory but about 11 Meg of swap (swap -l says 23248). Running X11 instead permits make, gcc etc to work, so there must be something related to that shared memory segment... Perhaps you could follow-up some more and tell us: a) what resources associated with *physical* memory can cause fork or sbrk to fail returning EAGAIN? b) what kconfig options can be used to adjust this? c) what additional implications there are in all this if shared memory segments are used? I'd have SPR'd this a long time ago, but it isn't too easy to send you something to duplicate it with.
cchd@lucifer.latrobe.edu.au (Huw Davies) (04/22/91)
In article <3055@redstar.cs.qmw.ac.uk> liam@cs.qmw.ac.uk (William Roberts;) writes: [Much text deleted] > >The comment about redirecting the console is true but unhelpful. NO CONSOLE >MESSAGE IS GENERATED for filling the regions table, if that is indeed what has >happened. I was having exactly this problem. I looked at /dev/oldmsgs and it explicitly mentioned that the region table was full. Increasing the size has fixed my problem. Huw Davies