search for: prlimit

...rver only reaches ~1015 listeners. I’ve set this on etc/security/limits.conf : icecast hard nofile 50000 icecast soft nofile 60000 icecast soft nproc 65535 icecast hard nproc 65535 * hard nofile 50000 * soft nofile 60000 * soft nproc 65535 * hard nproc 65535 If I set this: [root at scast1 ~]# prlimit -n5000 -p <pid> Everything works perfectly. But if I stop or reboot my ice cast server, 1024 backs again. What can I do to save that open file setting? Regards, Pedro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast...

It's a test for the new interceptor for prlimit. It could be disabled with __GLIBC_PREREQ for 2.13+. On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > +Evgenii for msan. > > I suspect the community simply doesn't keep track of what glibc > version is required :-/ > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016...

...ot user on Debian 9 and have so far, failed! I?ve tried this: # cat /etc/security/limits.d/limits_dovecot.conf dovecot soft nofile 2048 dovecot hard nofile 8192 # cat /etc/systemd/system/dovecot.service.d/service.conf LimitNOFILE=8192 But to no avail: # prlimit -p 27208|grep -i nofile NOFILE max number of open files 1024 4096 files Lost me :( Any ideas? Thanks,Sophie.

...e been changed leverage features of glibc newer than is available on this platform. I asked about a minimum-required glibc but didn't hear back. Is the minimum required glibc for 3.9 different from 3.8? When I tried rc1 on sles11.3 x86_64, msan's getrlimit test fails to build for lack of prlimit(). SLES11.3 has glibc 2.11.3. Is there a minimum required glibc? I think this test implementation previously used getrlimit(), which is present on glibc2.11.3. On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Diana Picus via Release-testers < release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Al...

...h its whole lifetime. We are working on a series of patches that would remove the need for SYS_RESOURCE capability from the pod running libvirtd: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt/pull/2584 We achieve it by making another, *privileged* component to set RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for libvirtd process using prlimit() syscall, using the value that is higher than the final value libvirtd uses with setrlimit() [Linux kernel will allow to lower the value without the capability.] Since the formula to calculate the actual MEMLOCK value is embedded in libvirt and is not simple to reproduce outside, we pick the upper...

...al commits: r279224 - Minor change to OpenCL release notes r279260 - [lld] Add a note that 3.9 is a major milestone for us r279468, r279474 - Fix gather-root.ll SLP vectorizer test to not expose UB r279476 - [lld] Add R_386_TLS_LE as a relocation having an implicit addend. r279471 - [msan] Disable prlimit test on glibc < 2.13 r279477 - [CloneFunction] Don't remove unrelated nodes from the CGSSC r279647 - [SCCP] Don't delete side-effecting instructions We're a little bit behind schedule and there is still an open release blocker in the Bugzilla, but I'm hopeful that we can wrap up...

...ugh, and don't try to set it unless we think we need to. > The PR I linked to in the original email does just that: it starts libvirtd; then, if domain is going to use VFIO, sets ulimit of libvirtd process to VM memory size + 1Gb (mimicking libvirt code) + 256Mb (to stay conservative) using prlimit() syscall; then defines the domain. > If I understand you correctly, you're saying that in your case it's okay > for the memlock limit to be lower than we try to set it to, because swap > is disabled anyway, is that correct? > I'm honestly not exactly sure about the reason...

...al commits: r279224 - Minor change to OpenCL release notes r279260 - [lld] Add a note that 3.9 is a major milestone for us r279468, r279474 - Fix gather-root.ll SLP vectorizer test to not expose UB r279476 - [lld] Add R_386_TLS_LE as a relocation having an implicit addend. r279471 - [msan] Disable prlimit test on glibc < 2.13 r279477 - [CloneFunction] Don't remove unrelated nodes from the CGSSC r279647 - [SCCP] Don't delete side-effecting instructions We're a little bit behind schedule and there is still an open release blocker in the Bugzilla, but I'm hopeful that we can wrap up...

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:24 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 01:37:21PM -0700, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > KubeVirt uses libvirtd to manage qemu VMs represented as Kubernetes > > API resources. In this case, libvirtd is running inside an > > unprivileged pod, with some host mounts / capabilities

...o. > >> > > > > The PR I linked to in the original email does just that: it starts > > libvirtd; then, if domain is going to use VFIO, sets ulimit of > > libvirtd process to VM memory size + 1Gb (mimicking libvirt code) + > > 256Mb (to stay conservative) using prlimit() syscall; then defines the > > domain. > > So you're making an educated guess, which is essentially what libvirt is > doing (based on advice from other people with better information than > us, but still a guess). > > > > >> If I understand you correctly, yo...

...it unless we think we need to. >> > > The PR I linked to in the original email does just that: it starts > libvirtd; then, if domain is going to use VFIO, sets ulimit of > libvirtd process to VM memory size + 1Gb (mimicking libvirt code) + > 256Mb (to stay conservative) using prlimit() syscall; then defines the > domain. So you're making an educated guess, which is essentially what libvirt is doing (based on advice from other people with better information than us, but still a guess). > >> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that in your case i...

...d this: > > # cat /etc/security/limits.d/limits_dovecot.conf > dovecot soft nofile 2048 > dovecot hard nofile 8192 > > # cat /etc/systemd/system/dovecot.service.d/service.conf > LimitNOFILE=8192 > > But to no avail: > > # prlimit -p 27208|grep -i nofile > NOFILE max number of open files 1024 4096 files > > > Lost me :( Any ideas? > > > Thanks,Sophie. cat<<EOF > /etc/systemd/system/dovecot.service.d/service.conf [Service] LimitNOFILE=8192 EOF systemctl daemon-reload...

...:00:49 EDT; 4s ago Docs: http://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/wiki Process: 2402 ExecStop=/bin/dbus-send --system --dest=org.ganesha.nfsd --type=method_call /org/ganesha/nfsd/admin org.ganesha.nfsd.admin.shutdown (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Process: 2389 ExecStartPost=/bin/bash -c prlimit --pid $MAINPID --nofile=$NOFILE:$NOFILE (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Process: 2387 ExecStart=/bin/bash -c ${NUMACTL} ${NUMAOPTS} /usr/bin/ganesha.nfsd ${OPTIONS} ${EPOCH} (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 2388 (code=dumped, signal=ABRT) I note that when glusterd starts up, (independe...

...for GPUs in the near future. >>> I believe we would benefit from one of the following features on >>> libvirt side (or both): >>> >>> a) expose the memory lock value calculated by libvirtd through >>> libvirt ABI so that we can use it when calling prlimit() on libvirtd >>> process; >>> b) allow to disable setrlimit() calls via libvirtd config file knob >>> or domain definition. (b) sounds much more reasonable, as long as qemu doesn't complain (I don't know whether or not it checks) Slightly related to this -...

Dear testers, 3.9.0-rc2 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r279183. This is a release candidate in the very real sense that if nothing new comes up, this is be what the final release looks like. There are currently no open release blockers, and no patches in my merge-queue. Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how everything goes. >From this point, the branch

Dear testers, 3.9.0-rc1 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r277207. This took a little longer than I'd hoped, but I think the branch is in a decent state now. There are still open merge requests and bugs, but I'd like to get the real testing started to see where we're at. Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how it goes. I'll upload source, docs,