From: cgf AT cygnus DOT com (Christopher Faylor)
Subject: Re: Bumping PSIZE & NTTYS to 256 in shared.h
19 Jan 1999 12:27:16 -0800
Message-ID: <19990119145405.G2342.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@cygnus.com>
References: <19990119194723 DOT 12024 DOT cpmta AT c000 DOT paix DOT cp DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: Geoff Corey <coreyg AT surfree DOT com>
Cc: cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 11:47:23AM -0800, Geoff Corey wrote:
>On Tue, 19 January 1999, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 10:35:09AM -0800, Geoff Corey wrote:
>> >Is there any reason why this shouldn't work?
>> 
>> There's no reason why this wouldn't work that I know of but this
>> is not something we'd want to put into cygwin due to the memory
>> constraints that you noticed.
>
>The memory contraint only comes into play if you fork more concurrent
>processes then you have memory in megs.  Changing it to 256 shouldn't
>affect current users as the problem can happen right now if a user
>forks 128 concurrent processes and only has 64 megs of ram.

Each process structure takes up memory.  I'm not comfortable with almost
doubling the amount of shared memory being used, right now.

Perhaps a number of people in this mailing list will chime in that they
really need to have the process limit doubled.  If there is a universal
need then we can certainly change it.  Otherwise, since no one that I
know of has complained about the 128 limit I don't see it as a general
need.

-chris