home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 85 20:57:51 EST
- From: Dan Franklin <dan@BBN-PROPHET.ARPA>
-
- > I have another argument against the desirability of these constants. It does
- > not allow people to do implementations that don't have any limitations (other
- > than availability of resources). It would be fairly easy to design a system
- > that would allow you to have an "unlimited" number of files, by allocating
- > a new table when the current table gets full.
-
- Even given such a system, I think it would still be desirable to place SOME
- limit on the number of open files per process to limit the consequences of
- error. A runaway program could conceivably open an unlimited number of files
- and use up the common resources (and also make it difficult to kill the
- process). Limiting a process to 500 or so open files seems like a good idea
- (just like most systems put some huge, but definite, limit on the size of a
- user's stack). This arbitrary limit would be the one that the limit facility
- would return.
-
- Dan Franklin
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 38
-
-