From owner-freebsd-questions  Fri Dec 29 11:34:20 1995
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA08250
          for questions-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nise-ch.nosc.mil (NISE-CH.NOSC.MIL [198.253.27.46])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA08235
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by nise-ch.nosc.mil (NX5.67f2/NX3.0M)
	id AA16932; Fri, 29 Dec 95 14:33:43 -0500
From: Craig Huckabee <huck@nise-ch.nosc.mil>
Message-Id: <9512291933.AA16932@nise-ch.nosc.mil>
Subject: Re: pty limit of 64
To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 14:33:41 -0500 (EST)
Cc: shovey@buffnet.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199512291831.KAA02819@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Dec 29, 95 10:31:37 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha3]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> >> 	Is there a way to increase the number of ptys beyond 64?
> 
>    As for ptys, 32 units are fully supported for each of ttyp, q, r, and s,
> and if you're not using xterms, another 32 ptys each are supported for P, Q, R,
> and S...for a total of 256 ptys.

	So how does this relate to the option

   pseudo-device	pty	16	#Pseudo ttys - can go as high as 64

	found in the kernel config?

	I made the ttyp, q, r, s, and P devices and added them to
	/etc/ttys before posting - I had overlooked the above line
	in my kernel config.

	After posting the question, I went out on a limb and built a 
	new kernel with 'pseudo-device pty 160' which would match what
	I had put in /etc/ttys & what I had done in /dev.  It built OK
	and is running OK, but config generated a pty.h file that
	contained something like '#define NPTY 1606', so I gotta be doing
	something wrong.

	Does that make the question any clearer or am I misunderstanding
	the meaning of the pseudo-device line?  BTW, this is with ver. 2.1

	Thanks,
	Craig
	huck@nosc.mil