Bug 7898 - testparm: unclear warning "rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)"
Summary: testparm: unclear warning "rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Window...
Alias: None
Product: Samba 3.5
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Config Files (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5.6
Hardware: x86 Linux
: P3 trivial
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karolin Seeger
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL: http://bugs.debian.org/608624
Depends on:
Reported: 2011-01-02 18:12 UTC by Jonathan Nieder
Modified: 2011-03-01 14:51 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

s3-param: Make "rlimit_max below minimum Windows limit" notification less scary (1.46 KB, patch)
2011-02-24 16:47 UTC, Jonathan Nieder
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jonathan Nieder 2011-01-02 18:12:03 UTC
Platform: Debian squeeze, samba 2:3.5.6~dfsg-3.

Running testparm yields the warning

 rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)

From [1] I see that this is perfectly harmless and normal
(thanks to Christian Perrier for a pointer) but the warning
message suggests a misconfiguration.  The Debian bug log
mentioned above contains a patch to change the message to

 rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (%d) to minimum Windows limit (%d)

which seems less alarming.  That message is still not very clear
but it seems good enough to me.

A possible related problem is that the log level is allowing this
message to be shown while smb.conf does not contain any directives
about log level.


[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.general/110927/focus=110940
Comment 1 Jonathan Nieder 2011-02-17 17:02:22 UTC
Ping?  Is there any further information I can provide here?

To recap, in the default configuration (at least on Debian), testparm produces confusing output that makes debugging by novices unnecessarily difficult.  There is a patch available to at least fix the message.
Comment 2 Karolin Seeger 2011-02-24 08:34:26 UTC
Jeremy, would you like to comment on this one?
Comment 3 Jeremy Allison 2011-02-24 14:05:08 UTC
Can you attach the debian patch please and I'll review to see if we can apply it.

Comment 4 Jonathan Nieder 2011-02-24 16:47:25 UTC
Created attachment 6269 [details]
s3-param: Make "rlimit_max below minimum Windows limit" notification less scary

Thanks, Jeremy; attached.  From <20100125175026.GC23333@samba1>:

"Does setting the fd limit higher result in better behavior, or does
the automatic increase have results that would be counterintuitive if
not mentioned?

"If the former, maybe the default rlimit_max should be increased
(on Debian squeeze it seems to be 1024 fwiw).  If the latter, I think
the message should say

	"rlimit_max: rlimit_max (8192) increased to minimum Windows limit (16384)

"to be more informative and sound less like a warning.  Like this,

Steve Langasek's reaction:

"At minimum, the debug message should be cleaned up to state *what* rlimit is
too low; the current message mentions nothing about file descriptors.

"Otherwise, I'm not overly concerned about this.  Nowadays, the default log
level is '0', isn't it?  So only users who have manually adjusted the
smb.conf 'log level' setting would be seeing this warning."

The default log level is not '0', however, at least on Debian.
Comment 5 Jeremy Allison 2011-02-24 20:16:21 UTC
Looks good to me for 3.5.next - applied to master and v3-6-test.
Re-assigning to Karolin for inclusion.
Comment 6 Karolin Seeger 2011-03-01 14:36:18 UTC
Pushed to v3-5-test.
Closing out bug report.

Comment 7 Jonathan Nieder 2011-03-01 14:51:35 UTC
Thanks, Karolin. :)