Re: Max number of consoles that can be supported with one conserver?

Bryan Stansell wrote:
>   something like 64 is
> probably a good start.  see if that helps things (maybe even go to 96 or
> 128).  it's all a balancing act.  but, if you haven't done this yet,
> it'll bring the process count down by a factor of 4 and should trigger
> less of a spike.


Thanks.  I'll try that.  What's the downside to going high on this?  I
see the faq mentions the possibility of a "lock up" delaying activity.
What would cause a lock up?

> the HUP processing is certainly not ideal.  it seems to work decently
> (a livable, but quite noticable, delay) on a sparc t1 with just over
> 1000 consoles (using --with-maxmemb=32).  that's the only hard datapoint
> i have beyond yours.  with the machine you're talking about, i'd think
> you *should* be able to support 3500 consoles.

Oh, it'll certainly support it once it's up and running.  We only have a
problem when we go and reload the configuration.

> i'd love to know if this helps.  if not, what is your --with-maxmemb/-m
> value?  (conserver -V shows it)

It's set to the default of 16.

I'll recompile with higher settings on Wednesday and give various settings
a try.

Travis

--
travis.campbell@amd.com    |  "In  theory, there is  no difference between
Sr. CAD Systems Engineer   |  theory and practice.  In practice there is."
AMD Silicon Design Systems |                                 -- Yogi Berra