Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 168088
Maximum number of filedescriptors set to 1024 (SQUID_MAXFD)
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:13 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru-RU; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050717 Firefox/1.0.6
Description of problem:
When squid ./configure script runs, it trying to detect maximum number of filedescriptors it can open. By default, ulimit is set to 1024.
1024 may be suitable for single-user deployment, but absolutely unsuitable for 1200 hosts behind proxy. For this situations, more suitable value is, perhaps, 16384.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
rpmbuild --rebuild and see messages it emits
Ctrl-C in progress and see SQUID_MAXFD set to 1024 in autoconf.h
Something like this will be enough I think
diff -urN squid-2.5.STABLE10.orig/configure squid-2.5.STABLE10/configure
--- squid-2.5.STABLE10.orig/configure 2005-05-17 02:41:14.000000000 +0400
+++ squid-2.5.STABLE10/configure 2005-09-09 23:17:41.000000000 +0400
@@ -8308,6 +8308,8 @@
rm -fr conftest*
echo "$ac_t""$SQUID_MAXFD" 1>&6
cat >> confdefs.h <<EOF
#define SQUID_MAXFD $SQUID_MAXFD
diff -urN squid-2.5.STABLE10.orig/configure.in squid-2.5.STABLE10/configure.in
--- squid-2.5.STABLE10.orig/configure.in 2005-05-17 02:41:14.000000000 +0400
+++ squid-2.5.STABLE10/configure.in 2005-09-09 23:18:13.000000000 +0400
@@ -2108,6 +2108,7 @@
if test "$SQUID_MAXFD" -lt 512 ; then
Please, route this issue to upstream, http://www.squid-cache.org/ and file the
request here. I don't want to change this default value for Fedora only. And If
you have to manage a large site, you surely don't use the default values but you
do some tuning.
Of course I'm doing some tuning! Rebuilding squid with maxfd patched, and
putting it in exclude= line of my yum.conf to avoid "official" broken package
from slipping into server.
Seriously, I wrote mail to "upstream". But what we have in fedora is just build
system deficiency on the one side (one cannot set ulimit -HSn 16384 prior to
build), and you, claiming this bug as a feature, on the other.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 72896 ***