Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 19:18:07 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <20020404011807.GC93977@madman.nectar.cc> In-Reply-To: <20020404005838.P60053-100000@patrocles.silby.com> References: <p0510150db8d1539dd305@[128.113.24.47]> <20020404005838.P60053-100000@patrocles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:07:13AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > 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. This falls in the same category as any other system tuning for questionable benchmarks. It is certainly not a compelling reason to break things. > 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. And it is a good change --- for a new operating system release. > Sure it is. After an installkernel you always have kernel.old sitting > around. You don't need the old kernel, anyway. You can just use the sysctl knobs. > This isn't a big deal, guys. Go find something better to make a fuss > about. Thanks for your consideration, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.cc> http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404011807.GC93977>