From owner-freebsd-net Wed Mar 20 13: 2:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d80.as14.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.134.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B203037B416 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:02:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from patrocles.silby.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2KL12jJ055388; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:01:02 GMT (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: from localhost (silby@localhost) by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g2KL115n055385; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:01:02 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:01:01 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Garrett Wollman Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. In-Reply-To: <200203202026.g2KKQch60289@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20020320145723.X55299-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > We still need to cap the number of sockets somehow, as it would be bad for > > sockets to consume all memory. > > There's already a cap: maxfiles. > > -GAWollman That would end up being a reduction below the current value; right now sockets > maxfiles with large maxuser values. Whether or not this is a necessary differential, I'm not sure. (With TIME_WAIT and FIN_WAIT_2 sockets, I believe that maxsockets should exceed maxfiles.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message