3 ms·
A fantastic article that deals with an issue of real, practical importance. I was surprised, however, to hear no mention of file descriptor limits, and I'm curi
by javajosh 5y ago
A fantastic article that deals with an issue of real, practical importance. I was surprised, however, to hear no mention of file descriptor limits, and I'm curious as to why that's not relevant. I think the article could be at least marginally improved by adding a note about this topic, particularly around the time it discusses the 28k available ephemeral ports available.
- graderjs 5y agoMaybe because overcoming file descriptor limits is as easy as setting the kernel limit.
- scottlamb 5y agoMaybe just because there are other good articles about that [1] and/or because you can hit the ephemeral port limit without even using that many ports from a single process. They gave examples of ssh (the client) and dig hitting the ephemeral port limit; no reason those programs would use a significant number of file descriptors. [1] I like this one: http://0pointer.net/blog/file-descriptor-limits.html http://0pointer.net/blog/file-descriptor-limits.html
- majke 5y agoWe set it to max and move on. Also, we monitor to see if there is an application doing something wrong. There never was an issue with a single process eating too many descriptors, and during normal operation it doesn't happen. With TCP remember there are time-waits.