On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 05:03:46PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
   >    
   >    I would support lowering the default per-user process limit back to 80; I
   >    suspect it was raised for the sake of convenience for those who run huge
   >    numbers of server processes under a single UID (e.g. apache) but don't
   >    understand how to raise the resource limit, which was a silly reason if
   >    it's why it was done.  Certainly it was a mistake to raise the *per-user*
   > 
   > it was raised because users run that many processes.  desktop users
   > run many programs.  if you run "konqueror" by itself, you get about
   > 10 processes.  i've never had a problem with servers and this limit.
   
   You get 10 processes for the *first* instance of that abominable pig
   "konqueror".  You don't get 10 processes for each subsequent one -- though
   it does eat one process per java applet, spit.

sure - i'm just pointing out that systems today fire up lots of processes
that fill up the users resource.
   
   Have you _really_ seen more than 80 processes consumed by a single desktop?
   I'd be curious to know what was running.  In any case, generally speaking
   one does not run huge numbers of X applications on a timesharing host; and
   we have login classes to apply resource limits for different kinds of users.

actually, it hits me most on the machine i run "screen" - i commonly
have 30+ windows, and each of those may have several suspended programs
in them...  and yes, i have hit 80 on a desktop as well.  as have others.
the change was made after many people had complained about it.  people
run virtual window manages with dozens of desktops, each with several
windows each.  i've seen people with more than 50 instances of "xterm",
and not just on single-user systems.


.mrg.