From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Hockin Subject: Re: RE: autofs scalability Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:12:46 -0800 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031204231246.GL10772@sun.com> References: <20031203194323.GB10772@sun.com> <20031204191203.GA17865@sun.com> <3FCF9367.8040804@zytor.com> <20031204223733.GJ10772@sun.com> <3FCFBE9B.6080807@zytor.com> Reply-To: thockin@sun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCFBE9B.6080807@zytor.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "Ogden, Aaron A." , autofs@linux.kernel.org, Ian Kent On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:09:15PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > You either allocate 2^20 bits for every user, or you allocate it as needed > > (and handle alloc failures when they are least expected) or you sysctl it > > and let the admin decide early on whether she wants to allow large numbers > > of pseudo-devs. > I can't imagine that these are allocated left and center... it should > pretty much be mount and nothing else. So yes, it's some more > complexity but not really significant. > > 2^20 bits = 128K, which falls in the "it's a bit on the expensive side, > but doable" class. > > Fixed limits suck. And yes, I'm also guilty of having put them in in > the past. They still suck. I think we agree about fixed limits, I'm just wary to spend 128k of every user's box for it, which is why I mentioned sysctl. Tim -- Tim Hockin Sun Microsystems, Linux Software Engineering thockin@sun.com All opinions are my own, not Sun's