Re: [Proftpd-user] RLimitMemory question
Bob Friesenhahn <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.proftpd.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Ian via Proftp-user wrote: > Hi Bob, > Thanks for the reply. > >> Virtual memory is "virtual" (just a number!) and thus it does not necessarily consume any RAM. > > This makes sense since we haven't seen a linear increase in the total Virtual RAM consumption as we scale up more connections, but do see increases of ~ 8K per additional connection. > >> It may be that the RLimitMemory feature is not very effective since it is based on virtual memory (address space) rather than the actual memory used. > > The directive name + the documentation is a bit vague so it could be misleading. I agree. Most people would not think to use this option since Proftpd normally uses very little RAM. It seems a bit similar to the setrlimit(2) system call with the RLIMIT_AS option, which you can read about at https://linux.die.net/man/2/setrlimit Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn [email protected], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ ProFTPD Users List <[email protected]> Unsubscribe problems? http://www.proftpd.org/list-unsub.html