3 Feb
2006
3 Feb
'06
09:47
Steve Graegert wrote:
I just ran the above via a remote konsole, and my 2-way machine certainly _appears_ to be locked up. I'll have to make my way to the computer-room to check out the local console.
Sorry, to hear that. I've used this code for years in trainings on a couple of platforms. Never tried that on an Intel box running Linux prior to 2.6. Can hardly believe that 2.4 can be compromised that easily :-
What's interesting is - it reported CHILD_MAX = 999, yet your bit of code was allowed to start 7000+ processes? (see my other posting) This is not an area I've ever looked into - do I need to enable something or other in order to have a cap on the number of processes? /Per Jessen, Zürich