Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:34:26 +0200 From: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inetd with -R -1 patch? Message-ID: <20000623103426.B2230@cichlids.cichlids.com> In-Reply-To: <51106.961745698@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>; from sheldonh@uunet.co.za on Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 09:34:58AM %2B0200 References: <20000608123700.A22155@cichlids.cichlids.com> <51106.961745698@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Sheldon Hearn (sheldonh@uunet.co.za):
> Personally, I'd prefer it if zero implied an unlimited number of
Yes. Fine, too.
> invokations per service per minute. However, the special case isn't
> really necessary, since you can simply specify some large number (and
> then prepare to have your box dragged under). :-)
Heh. That counts for every piece of software where you can set
"unlimited"
> PS: Did you test the patch you sent? :-)
Yes.
root:~ $ netstat -a | grep localhost.telnet | wc -l
864
(I wasn't able to stress the system more :)
However, as I just saw, the -R -1 does not work (I tested it with
-DTOOMANY=-1). So -R 0 for unlimited is better (because of strtol).
Alex
--
cat: /home/alex/.sig: No such file or directory
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000623103426.B2230>