[httperf] fd-unavail?

[Brian LaMere]

So to use this tool to test relatively mild rates, I have to change a
system include file?  That seems a bit...excessive...to me.

I'm trying to test a relatively small system.  Is there a rate number
that I just shouldn't use httperf after?  900?  1200?

Thanks,
Brian

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Arlitt, Martin <martin.arlitt at hp.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian
>
> With the current version of httperf I believe it is necessary (to sustain high request rates).
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: httperf-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com [mailto:httperf-bounces at napali.hpl.hp.com] On Behalf Of Brian LaMere
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:59 PM
> To: httperf at napali.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: [httperf] fd-unavail?
>
> Getting this in httperf runs:
>
> Errors: total 1117 client-timo 191 socket-timo 0 connrefused 0 connreset 0
> Errors: fd-unavail 926 addrunavail 0 ftab-full 0 other 0
>
> Problem is, I have:
>
> brian at host:~$ ulimit -n
> 65535
> brian at host:~$ cat /proc/sys/fs/file-max
> 697479
>
> Is there something special about fd's with httperf?  This page:
> http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~brecht/servers/openfiles.html
>
> suggests I need to actually change posix_types.h, which yeah - is 1024
> - but...is that actually necessary?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> httperf mailing list
> httperf at linux.hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/httperf/
>
> _______________________________________________
> httperf mailing list
> httperf at linux.hpl.hp.com
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/hosted/linux/mail-archives/httperf/
>