From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Apr 3 17: 8:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from patrocles.silby.com (d30.as13.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.135.158]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EB237B416; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:08:10 -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 g3477GUH060518; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:07:16 -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 g3477EmV060515; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:07:15 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: patrocles.silby.com: silby owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:07:13 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020404005838.P60053-100000@patrocles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > What I don't see is why this must be made to -stable at all. > What would be the consequences if we simply left RELENG_4 > with the same port-range that it's always had? Note that > this is not a complaint on my part, it is only a request for > more information. The ephemeral port range determines the maximum number of simultaneous outbound connections that you can have. As pointed out in a PR (I don't recall the # offhand), our low limit was probably the reason that FreeBSD ran out of steam before the other OSes in the sysadmin benchmark last year. Normally I wouldn't change settings to tune for a benchmark, but there is no functional downside to this change. As Jacques points out, many sysadmins with busy servers _already_ make this change, as have a few other OSes. > Chances are pretty good that they would not notice any such > problems until after they have done the "installworld" step, > and thus it is not necessarily a simple matter to "just go > back" to their previous kernel. Sure it is. After an installkernel you always have kernel.old sitting around. This isn't a big deal, guys. Go find something better to make a fuss about. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message