On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Brad Nelson wrote:
> ...I believe the reason it was changed
> was that it seemed better as a binary because the shell script was
> creating new processes constantly, and after a couple of days the PID
> numbers were exorbitantly large. Whether or not that could become an
> issue or not, we don't know,
I'm intrigued as to why anyone would think that the size of PID number
would be any sort of an issue.
PID 1 might look smaller than PID 65535 when written in decimal, but they
are both stored as the same size binary number. PIDs wrap round when they
reach the max PID number. If a PID is in use is it skipped. At work we've
had very busy Linux servers with uptime measured in many months. God only
knows how many times the PID numbering has gone round the clock - it is
categorically not an issue.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|