Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:22:49 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Adam McDougall <mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: pf: BAD state happens often with portsnap fetch update Message-ID: <459192A9.2050808@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200612261129.48173.max@love2party.net> References: <20061210010823.GS81923@egr.msu.edu> <20061214172323.GP1011@egr.msu.edu> <45908ED3.4040503@freebsd.org> <200612261129.48173.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Max Laier wrote: > Another sollution, of course, would be to: Don't do that then. It really > seems wrong for a program to exhaust the outgoing port pool. Portsnap tries to use a single HTTP/TCP connection for downloading large numbers of patches; the problem is being triggered by squid closing the HTTP connection after each file. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?459192A9.2050808>