240 or maybe 244 is right.. 8192 is not.. that being said.. it can cause issues on some newer linux, it will change that setting for everything, so you might need to do it in a bash script that starts freeswitch instead. On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:53 PM, jay binks <jaybinks@gmail.com> wrote:
can we just get a concensus from the people who know ?? :)
Anthm, MikeJ, BWK ..
it sounds like ulimit -s 240 is the way to go, right ?
On 13 August 2013 12:28, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote: well if you look at the wiki history there seems to be a fight over what to set it to, i always set it to 240 cause it makes that error msg anout stack > 240 at startup go away
Ken Sent from my iPad
On Aug 12, 2013, at 21:13, jay binks <jaybinks@gmail.com> wrote:
So Ken,
we should change http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Performance_testing_and_configurations to be : ulimit -s 240
Just want to be 100% sure before changing it .
Jay
On 13 August 2013 11:18, Ken Rice <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote: yes this is normal, if fs can auto adjust it to 240 it will... you dont need > that for the thread stack anyway
Ken Sent from my iPad
On Aug 12, 2013, at 19:52, Nuno Reis <nreis@wavecom.pt> wrote:
Hi guys.
I'm currently using the recommended ulimit settings as defined here:
http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Performance_testing_and_configurations
Although there's at least one parameter that doesn't seem to be right when i do a status at fs_cli:
UP 0 years, 0 days, 10 hours, 25 minutes, 14 seconds, 617 milliseconds, 626 microseconds FreeSWITCH is ready 55390 session(s) since startup 0 session(s) 0/100 5000 session(s) max min idle cpu 0.00/98.00 Current Stack Size/Max 240K/240K
The stack size should be 8192 as defined, but FS shows otherwise.
I'm using centOS x86_64 and a 64 bit version of FS. Is this normal? Thanks.
--