From owner-freebsd-net Tue Mar 19 12: 2: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [204.179.120.86]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E3437B402 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-relay01.mac.com (server-source-si02 [10.13.10.6]) by smtpout.mac.com (8.12.1/8.10.2/1.0) with ESMTP id g2JK11JZ021286 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:01:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp02.mac.com ([10.13.10.66]) by smtp-relay01.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 relay01 Jun 21 2001 23:53:48) with ESMTP id GT8KXO00.FLF for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:01:00 -0800 Received: from grinch ([12.234.224.67]) by asmtp02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 asmtp02 Jun 21 2001 23:53:48) with ESMTP id GT8KXN00.HDS for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:00:59 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:00:58 -0800 Subject: Re: ephemeral port allocation - time for a change? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v475) From: "Justin C. Walker" To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20020319111522.H49521-100000@patrocles.silby.com> Message-Id: <07F5F059-3B74-11D6-AD54-00306544D642@mac.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 09:35 AM, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > By filing PR docs/32041, Mark Blackman has reminded me of an issue that > has been nagging me for some time now. As Mark points out, one of the > likely problems in the sysadmin mag benchmark run last spring was that > the > system ran out of ephemeral ports. Unforunately, nobody caught this at > the time, and the benchmarkers were unable to explain why freebsd hit a > connection limit below that of the other OSes. > > Right now, we're still using the traditional port range of 1024-5000, > which limits us to a little under 4000 distinct outgoing connections. > AFAIK, other OSes have started transitioning to the now preferred port > range of 49152-65535, which would give us about 4x more breathing room. > > Looking through the logs for in.h, I can see that peter attempted > changing the port range to 20000-30000 about 6 years ago, but reverted > the > change because of firewall issues. > > My question is this: Is anyone aware of a reason that using 49152-65535 > by default would cause problems today? FWIW, Mac OS X/Darwin has been shipping with this (high) range as the default since "1.0". Hasn't caused any problems that I know of (or, at least, that anyone's been able to pin on the change :-]). Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | It's not whether you win or lose... | It's whether *I* win or lose. *--------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message