On 12/17/2013 4:33 PM, Lists wrote: > This large value doesn't really make sense to me - can somebody explain > why the change to such a large value? its just a limit, it has no impact unless someone claims too much shared memory. the only place it makes sense to set it small is on a shared ssytem with potentially hostile users who might think its funny to allocate too much and cause a denial of service.... eg, Students. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- From: John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:55:06 -0800
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <52B0ED4C.2010903@benjamindsmith.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- From: Woodchuck
- Re: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- References:
- Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- From: Lists
- Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- Prev by Date: Re: Virtual Machine converted from physical : Kernel Panic at boot .
- Next by Date: Re: Virtual Machine converted from physical : Kernel Panic at boot .
- Previous by thread: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- Next by thread: Re: Why the huge shmmax default setting?
- Index(es):
 |