Looking at those results after responding, I noticed I only have 5 okular instances open, the pdf reader (sadly I stay mired in pdf documentation often), when it's spawning 13 xclient sessions. I wonder if this is just being stupid is what's blowing it out somehow. PDF's, another bit lf legacy windoze technology I wish would die. I hate adobe, but it's become defacto for doc standards when libreoffice vs. openoffice vs. microsith office stay in a pissing match with each other. -mb On 06/12/2015 02:56 PM, Michael Butash wrote: > Thanks for the comments Matt - in line. > > On 06/12/2015 02:18 PM, Matt Graham wrote: >> On 2015-06-11 17:20, Michael Butash wrote: >>> [X reaching a maximum number of clients is a problem] in that it >>> simply refuses to open new [X clients], and [I] find this happens >>> more and more these days. Am I like the only actual person to use >>> linux these days that this occurs with? >> >> I've never seen this happen. What do you get when this is happening >> and you do "xlsclients | sort | uniq -c" ? I currently have 64 X >> clients running here. Most KDE things show up as 2 or 3 X clients. >> plasma-desktop shows up as 20. firefox shows up as 1. > I was actually trying to remember that command as I've seen it > referenced and checked before, so thanks for that. > > Every now and then problem will piss me off royally as literally my pc > won't be able to wake my monitors up out of dpms sleep because of this > (presumably), thus I have to hard reboot. Odd part is when it freaks > like this, even ssh'ing in from my laptop, killing some pids (ie. > chrome|chromium I have an xargs script I keep to seek and destroy > all), and it still won't wake then. I need add something to watch > these... > > After it did this the other day upon composition of the email, I > killed the chrom*'s, and it's been a bit stable. xrestop was another > that was recommended to watch, but by the time I hit that limit, even > xrestop gives me the "max number of clients reached", even though a > cli application... > > Another way I know my system is almost ready to implode is waking up > out of monitor sleep, expecting to see the simple-locker screen, > rather I see a full desktop, unhidden, but I can't actually click on > anything. Yeah, so much for privacy/security, but at least someone > couldn't interact with it. It requires me to ctrl-alt-F1, switch to a > tty, and back to F7 to see the locker again, unlock, and actually use > my desktop. Seem another byproduct of xorg freaking out. > > At the (working) moment... > > mb@host:~$ xlsclients | sort | wc -l > 144 > mb@host:~$ xlsclients | sort | uniq -c > 1 host baloo_file > 1 host bamfdaemon > 1 host Banshee > 1 host blueman-applet > 1 host cairo-dock > 1 host chromium-browser > 1 host dolphin > 1 host eom > 1 host evince > 1 host gcalctool > 1 host gkrellm > 1 host gnome-terminal > 1 host ibus-ui-gtk3 > 1 host ibus-x11 > 1 host kactivitymanagerd > 3 host kded4 > 1 host 'kdeinit4: kded4 [kdeinit]' > 1 host 'kdeinit4: ksmserver [kdeinit]' > 1 host kglobalaccel > 1 host klipper > 1 host kmix > 1 host knotify4 > 1 host konsole > 1 host korgac > 1 host krunner > 2 host ksmserver > 1 host kuiserver > 1 host kwalletd > 6 host kwin > 1 host mate-screensaver > 1 host nautilus > 5 host okular > 1 host pavucontrol > 1 host Pidgin > 1 host plasma-desktop > 1 host pluma > 1 host polkit-kde-authentication-agent-1 > 1 host soffice.bin > 1 host thunderbird > 1 host transmission-remote-gtk > 2 host /usr/bin/baloo_file > 3 host /usr/bin/dolphin > 1 host /usr/bin/kactivitymanagerd > 2 host /usr/bin/kglobalaccel > 3 host /usr/bin/klipper > 8 host /usr/bin/kmix > 8 host /usr/bin/konsole > 2 host /usr/bin/korgac > 3 host /usr/bin/krunner > 2 host /usr/bin/kuiserver > 2 host /usr/bin/kwalletd > 13 host /usr/bin/okular > 29 host /usr/bin/plasma-desktop > 2 host /usr/lib/kde4/libexec/polkit-kde-authentication-agent-1 > 2 host /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice.bin > 1 host /usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox > 2 host /usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox --comment shitxp > --startvm 81289eb9-7de8-492c-9a4f-56977a2b8eca --no-startvm-errormsgbox > 1 host vino-server > 2 host VirtualBox > 1 host vmware > 1 host vmware-tray > 1 host vmware-unity-helper > 1 '' /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/soffice > > I made a note on my desktop (dry erase pen + glass tabletop == best > whiteboard ever) to check that next time it freaks out. >>> I've seen reports of this, stating it's a hard-coded thing in xorg >>> code, which I find entirely asinine >> >> It probably seemed like a reasonable assumption back when the X11 >> protocol was designed that an X client would only make 1 connection >> to the server, and that having 256 or 512 X clients at once was >> enough. I don't have the Xorg source here so can't find where this >> is set, either. > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/25273/what-is-the-max-number-of-x-clients > >> >>> Chrome/Chromium that launches some 300 flocks on various things, and >>> blows out the 256/512 client count on xorg. >> >> What did you mean by "flocks"? If Chrome creates a separate X client >> for every browser tab, that'd probably cause stupidity, but I could >> see it doing that. (Having fewer than 30 tabs open at any given time >> would fix that if it were the case.) > File locks, or rather just open files, bad nomenclature on my part. > Actually I mean to include a "k" after that, or 300,000 is what I see > chrome wanting to use from a ulimit perspective. I've seen that open > by chrome|chromium between them consume 300,000k+ files opened, mostly > every tab calling hundreds of libs each they require. This was the > first limit I started hitting, eventually having to bump up my ulimit > counts in limits.conf to a higher (borderline absurd) number. > > mb@host:~$ cat /etc/security/limits.conf | grep nofile > # - nofile - max number of open files > #* soft nofile 16384 > * soft nofile 524288 > #* hard nofile 32768 > * hard nofile 786432 > > The commented bits were the old default ubuntu limits, and my updated, > blown way the heck out of proportion limits for how I work with them. > Either modern linux needs to accomodate ridiculous necessity of modern > apps, or modern apps need to respect why those limits were set to what > they were. Who is right? Who knows, start holy war. >>> I have 3 chrome profiles open, some pdfs, libreoffice, >>> some chrome apps, some file manager windows (dolphin/kde), and not >>> much else. [...] am I the only person that really "uses" a linux >>> desktop to see these? >> >> Obviously not if you found some other people complaining on a search >> engine. First thing to do is figure out which program is causing the >> stupidity. I was surprised to see 20 plasma-desktop clients here, >> because plasma applets are useless and I didn't think I had any of >> them running at all. > Agreed. The file handler issue was the biggest issue, but both it and > the xclientslimits, and maybe others are crippling my usability as I > can't trust my desktop any longer. I constantly lose work as I'm > scratching in a gedit window without autosaves when I have to reboot. > I'm less worried about my fork-bombing my system as I watch for memory > leaks, but rather these almost dumb limits considering modern apps > ignore respectable limits in various components of linux are my > biggest limiter. > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss