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
(text/plain)