Open
Conversation
The problem mentioned in the admonition does not happen anymore, so it was probably occurring in older versions that got patched. Currently the mentioned line is already uncommented in Ubuntu by default, so I propose to change the sentence for the user to be aware of the possibility of limits.conf being ignored due to this.
Contributor
✅ Vale Linting ResultsNo issues found on modified lines! The Vale linter checks documentation changes against the Elastic Docs style guide. To use Vale locally or report issues, refer to Elastic style guide for Vale. |
eedugon
commented
Mar 19, 2026
Contributor
🔍 Preview links for changed docs |
eedugon
commented
Mar 19, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The problem mentioned in the admonition does not happen anymore, so it was probably occurring in older versions that got patched.
Currently the mentioned line is already uncommented in Ubuntu by default, so I propose to change the sentence for the user to be aware of the possibility of limits.conf being ignored due to this in some cases.
I've also removed the mention to
init.dbecauseinit.dscripts do not apply limits.conf, as they do not go through PAM. They start processes directly (typically viastart-stop-daemon). Also with modern systemd serviceslimits.confdoes not apply either.