Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:36:25 -0800 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Brad Midgley <brad@pht.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: What happened to my include files!@# Message-ID: <199503312336.PAA00166@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Mar 95 16:10:10 MST." <Pine.LNX.3.91.950331154216.367I-100000@exodus.pht.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The one thing which did give me an unpleasant surprise was the necessity >to configure the system with > > options "NMBCLUSTERS=1024" > >even after I'd defined maxusers as 64. It would be very nice to not have >to know an obscure option like this--is there no way NMBCLUSTERS could be >computed from maxusers like some other table sizes are? That's an interesting idea. Hmmm.... >And while I'm on the subject, is it safe for maxusers to be larger than >64? v2.0 gave me a warning when I set it any higher. What does >ftp.cdrom.com run with? It's always been safe to use higher values. I don't know what purpose the warning was supposed to serve (perhaps to protect against crazy people?). >BTW, I'm curious. What does this message mean? > > in-rtqtimo: adjusted rtq_reallyold to 2400 It means that your machine talks to lots of others and the routing table was getting rather large with all the clone routes. The system compensated for this by lowering the timeout for these. It's not uncommon for the timeout to be lowered to as low as 5 minutes on freefall. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503312336.PAA00166>