From: noer AT cygnus DOT com (Geoffrey Noer) Subject: Re: Process ID allocation methods 21 Mar 1998 14:26:34 -0800 Message-ID: <199803212220.OAA15188.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@rtl.cygnus.com> References: Content-Type: text To: cgf AT bbc DOT com Cc: cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com Christopher Faylor wrote: [...] > I think that either of these schemes would be hard to do. You'd > have to somehow instruct every running process to extend its shared > memory to include the new table(s). > > Have there been complaints about the pids wrapping too fast or have people > been running out of pids? People have definitely been running out of pids. I see the occasional "fork: no more processes" message in peoples' complaints to the list. The main thing I don't like about wrapping so soon is that no other Unix flavor that I know of does it this way. I don't know enough about pids in Unix to know whether it violates any common assumptions people might make. :-( -- Geoffrey Noer noer AT cygnus DOT com