From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Mar  4 11:57:24 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA23315
          for questions-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns3.noc.netcom.net (ns3.noc.netcom.net [204.31.1.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA23310
          for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tera.com (tera.tera.com [206.215.142.10]) by ns3.noc.netcom.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22281; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:56:40 -0800
Received: from athena.tera.com by tera.com (4.1/SMI-4.0-206)
	id AA06402; Mon, 4 Mar 96 11:56:11 PST
From: kline@tera.com (Gary Kline)
Message-Id: <9603041956.AA06402@tera.com>
Subject: Re: kernel messages....
To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu, jlwest@tseinc.com, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199603041913.MAA21147@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Mar 4, 96 12:13:35 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

According to Nate Williams:
> 
> > > date  time  hostname /kernel: in_rtqtimo: adjusted rtq_reallyold to 2400
> > 
> > 
> > No, it's not running out of anything.  It is attempting to keep the
> > per-host cache from consuming all available memory by shortening the
> > timeout after which they are deleted.  This message is harmless, and
> > you can ignore it.
> 
> This is a very common question on both News and on the mailing lists.
> 
> Is there anyway we could re-word this or even remove it if it's
> informational only.  I'm not aware of any other kernel informational
> messages which don't imply something 'bad' has happened, or at least
> that something needs operator attention.
> 

	So.  

	I've gotten similar (benign) messages printed to stderr
	from user-ppp, but only a root, I think.  Anonying.

	Couldn't we fix this from going to stderr and instead
	being sent as an informational message to root//and-or
	whoever is doing the sysadmin?

	I have finally (*I hope*) successfully gotten Cnews
	working, and it was thanks to the warning and urgent 
	mail messages from new scripts that I was able to
	pick out nits, bugs, and small/annonying errors that
	were cropping up.

	Informing the sysadmin about what's going on just makes
	sense.  Anybody else?

	gary

>