From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr 14 18:58:08 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA16114
          for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.32])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA16014
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:57:41 GMT
          (envelope-from tom@sdf.com)
Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #3)
	id 0yPH3G-0000VJ-00; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:31:50 -0700
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tom@sdf.com>
To: "Jung, Michael" <mikej@finall.com>
cc: "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: arplookup
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Financial_Allian%l=EXCHANGE-980414194424Z-17136@exchange.finall.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980414182856.1884B-100000@misery.sdf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jung, Michael wrote:

> 1st: Is this output from "dmesg" _ daily security files
> 
> arplookup 172.20.1.79 failed: host is not on local network
> arplookup 172.20.1.79 failed: host is not on local network
> 
> Is this telling me "I got a pack from 172.20.1.79" but I couldn't
> arp and get a mac address?  

  No, something on your ethernet is telling everybody that it is
172.20.1.79, but that address does not fall within the address range for
your network.

> 2nd - I'm curious where the registration figures (25000 users) came
...

  The figure is bogus.  I don't even know where you got it from, or where
it was even mentioned...

> 3rd - On a little ol box at home that I put through a lot of stress it
> appeared to me I could no longer create
> new processes.  Their were ~170 running at the time.  messages logged
> where
> 
> proc: table is full
> proc: table is full
> 
> Needless to say I was not out of swap, and the filesystem where /proc
> resides had over 1GB free space.

  Yes, the proc table is full.  If you were out of swap, it would say so!
Increase MAXUSERS to get a bigger proc table.

Tom


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