From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Jun 16 0:44: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08B414E37; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:44:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id JAA76952; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:44:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Holtor , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's FTP Daemon References: <19990608104549.4750.rocketmail@web113.yahoomail.com> <19990615195447.B65028@nuxi.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 16 Jun 1999 09:44:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:54:47 -0700" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "David O'Brien" writes: > I totally disagree. One of my 486DX2/66 boxes became a warez site over > a year ago (w/out my knowledge). The load from all the FTPs taking place > on this small box was incredible. 100 clients made the box totally > dead. I tried NcFTPd just for fun and found I could still get a login > and do things (admititly *very* slowly). Did you try stock ftpd compiled with INTERNAL_LS? Did you run both FTP daemons under similar circumstances (both standalone, or both through inetd)? Can you document that they were subjected to equal load? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message