[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mldonkey-users] Why does mldonkey open so much files (1024)?
From: |
Martin Schmidt |
Subject: |
Re: [Mldonkey-users] Why does mldonkey open so much files (1024)? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:54:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.3 |
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 22:21, MLdonkey wrote:
> > Sometimes after a few hours mldonkey has 1024 files (including
> > connections I think) open (lsof output) - and a netstat -n| wc -l
> > says something like 124 connections.
>
> Well, it is an old problem, and I still don't know where the file
> descriptors are leaking... Could you give me more information:
>
> "ps auxww | grep mldonkey" to know the process PID. Then, go in
> /proc/mldonkey_PID/fd. Do a "ls -l" and try to understand where file
> descriptors are allocated: on the 1024, how many are shared files ?
> How many are sockets (compared to the result of netstat) ? How many
> are for config files (.ini) ?
The last time this bug happened I checked with lsof and the number of shared
and config files was ok (not so much, shared about 5, 40 downloading - like
it was). But the real big rest was sockets. And Netstat showed only about
130.
When it happens next time, I check it again.
> Moreover, when it happens, are you mainly downloading or uploading ?
I think downloading (40).
> Are you on several networks ?
No, only edonkey - mldonkey is compiled only with edonkey support.
> > The problem with this is, that I can't connect then with telnet or
> > http and I can't add links of course, too.
> >
> > Now my question is, if it really neccessary, that mldonkey opens so much
> > files/connections, and why - or it is just a bug?
> >
> > And if it no bug, should I increase the limit in
> > /usr/src/linux/include/linux/limits.h ? What are the disadcantages?
>
> Increasing the limit can prevent the bug from appearing too often, but
> it will not remove the bug :) Normally, mldonkey tries to take the
> number of opened files into account, so that this problem is really a BUG.
Good to know.
Regards
Martin Schmidt