Date: 04 Apr 2002 00:28:20 -0500 From: "Brandon S. Allbery " KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <1017898100.86889.2.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.apk.net> In-Reply-To: <20020404011807.GC93977@madman.nectar.cc> References: <p0510150db8d1539dd305@[128.113.24.47]> <20020404005838.P60053-100000@patrocles.silby.com> <20020404011807.GC93977@madman.nectar.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 20:18, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > 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. So, how many other -stable users already change this via sysctl because the default is too low? I do; and the default seems ridiculously low to me. > And it is a good change --- for a new operating system release. The idea of deferring a change like this to the next release instead of letting it get some testing first seems Bad to me. -- brandon s allbery [openafs/solaris/japh/freebsd] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [linux/heimdal/too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university [better check the oblivious first -ke6sls] 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?1017898100.86889.2.camel>