Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:51:00 -0500 From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: Stephen McKay <syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Perils of login.conf (Was: fsck (2.2.5-RELEASE) large filesystems broken) Message-ID: <19971027135100.12106@crh.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199710250154.LAA02018@troll.dtir.qld.gov.au>; from Stephen McKay on Sat, Oct 25, 1997 at 11:54:11AM %2B1000 References: <19971023004136.21792@crh.cl.msu.edu> <199710240723.RAA15535@ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au> <19971024083642.18571@crh.cl.msu.edu> <199710250154.LAA02018@troll.dtir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On the subject of Perils of login.conf (Was: fsck (2.2.5-RELEASE) large filesystems broken), Stephen McKay stated:
> Ahem! Well, I wouldn't be using anything more dangerous than Nerf bats
> myself, but I have been inconvenienced a couple times by login.conf.
You just havent been bitten by this as hard as I was :) But okay, how about a
nerf assault rifle? :)
> There are some people who are very keen on it, and presumably it does
> wonderful things for them. However, after some pain and a bit of
> reflection, I think the defaults for everything should be pushed way up,
> like the maximum that FreeBSD can take for all these knobs, and let those
> that support hundreds or thousands of users wind them back to whatever
> limits they wish to impose.
>
> If this was the case then regular users would have one less thing to worry
> about and magazine reviewers who benchmark "out of the box" would get
> sensible results. Those who really use login.conf to impose carefully
> selected limits would be unaffected.
Hear hear! That sounds like a perfect solution to me!
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971027135100.12106>