Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 37254 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2002 01:26:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 37241 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 01:25:59 -0000 Subject: RLimitNPROC behaviour question From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo Organization: TIMTOWTDI Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 03:22:35 +0200 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/mod/core.html#rlimitnproc says: | Note: If CGI processes are not running under userids other than the | web server userid, this directive will limit the number of processes | that the server itself can create. Evidence of this situation will | be indicated by "cannot fork" messages in the error_log. I looked into the kernel code and played around with strace and found that it's not true at least for linux 2.2 and 2.4. the rlimit properties will be set after forking and apply only to the forked process and it's children. So it cannot influence the server processes in such way. But my experiences with other OSes are very small. Can someone leave a word on behaviour of other OSes? If I'm totally wrong, please tell me ;-) nd -- s;.*;aaaaaoaaaoaaaaooooaaoaaaomaaaa:a:alataa:aaoat:a:a:a maoaa:a:laoata:a:oia:a:o:a:m:a:o:alaoooat:aaool:aaoaa matooololaaatoto:aaa:o:a:o:m;;s:\s:\::g;y;mailto:; \40\51/\134\137|ndparker ;;print;