[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20040913: Possible pqact issue in LDM?



Steven,

[Sorry for the delay.  I just returned from a 3-day weekend mini-vacation.]

>Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:13:51 -0500
>From: "Steven Danz" <address@hidden>
>Organization: Aviation Weather Center
>To: Steve Emmerson <address@hidden>
>Subject: Re: 20040909: Possible pqact issue in LDM?
>Keywords: 200409091803.i89I3pnJ023109

The above message contained the following:

> Steve,
...
> >First things first.  Try adding the "-wait" option to the EXEC entry 
> >(without the quotes and bracketed by tabs.
> >  
> >
> Will do, but won't this slow things down?  Not that I mind, ingesting
> NOAAPort and running this script is all the system does anyway.

The EXEC-ed program will be executed the same number of times regardless
of whether the "-wait" option is used or not -- so the computer will do
the same amount of work.  Whether it will do this work slower if the
"-wait" option is used is hard to say and is usually determined
empirically.

> >Along those lines, what is the limit on the number of child process a 
> >user may have? (Try the command "ulimit -a")
> >
> Max users processes is 1023, but nothing about child processes.

This means that the LDM user is limited to 1024 processes -- totaled
over all sessions.

> >Is there anything relevant in the LDM logfile from the pqact(1) process?
> >
> Nope, nice and clean (which is part of the confusion).

Hmm...  The pqact(1) program will log a message if it can't EXEC
a program for any reason.  Therefore, it can't be hitting the
process-limit.

Let me know the results of using the "-wait" option.

> Thanks for the help!
> 
> Steven

Regards,
Steve Emmerson


NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly available through the web. If you do not want to have your interactions made available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.