From owner-freebsd-net  Thu Mar 21 18:56: 0 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d135.as15.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.136.73])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8685337B417
	for <net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:55:56 -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 g2M8s25d003988;
	Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:54:02 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from silby@silby.com)
Received: from localhost (silby@localhost)
	by patrocles.silby.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) with ESMTP id g2M8s03Q003985;
	Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:54:01 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:54:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets.
In-Reply-To: <200203202233.g2KMXcC61425@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20020322025040.C3059-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> <<On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:01:01 -0600 (CST), Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> said:
>
> > 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.)
>
> My point was that it's not necessary to enforce a limit on sockets,
> specifically, because maxfiles (and user resource limits) will keep
> users from opening too many sockets.  We should probably look to
> templating closed TCP connections, since they don't actually need a
> socket at all (or most of the PCB).
>
> -GAWollman

A TIME_WAIT cache or similar would be great, I agree.  In that case, I'd
think that you would want fewer sockets than files so that apps would
always have free files available, even once sockets were depleted.  In
short, I think that it's advantageous having seperate limits, given that
doing so is easy.

Mike "Silby" Silbersack


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message