Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax
From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Tue Apr 01 2014 - 18:49:52 EST
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:41:54 -0400 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >> > Hmmm so 0 won't really work because it could be weirdly used to disable
>> >> > shm altogether... we cannot go to some negative value either since we're
>> >> > dealing with unsigned, and cutting the range in half could also hurt
>> >> > users that set the limit above that. So I was thinking of simply setting
>> >> > SHMMAX to ULONG_MAX and be done with it. Users can then set it manually
>> >> > if they want a smaller value.
>> >> >
>> >> > Makes sense?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think people use 0 for disabling. but ULONG_MAX make sense to me too.
>> >
>> > Distros could have set it to [U]LONG_MAX in initscripts ten years ago
>> > - less phone calls, happier customers. And they could do so today.
>> >
>> > But they haven't. What are the risks of doing this?
>>
>> I have no idea really. But at least I'm sure current default is much worse.
>>
>> 1. Solaris changed the default to total-memory/4 since Solaris 10 for DB.
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/kernel-resources.html
>>
>> 2. RHEL changed the default to very big size since RHEL5 (now it is
>> 64GB). Even tough many box don't have 64GB memory at that time.
>
> Ah-hah, that's interesting info.
>
> Let's make the default 64GB?
64GB is infinity at that time, but it no longer near infinity today. I like
very large or total memory proportional number.
But I'm open. Please let me see if anyone know the disadvantage of
very large value.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/