From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 17 02:19:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA02300 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA02284 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.6/8.8.5) id EAA00338; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:18:24 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199709170918.EAA00338@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: login classes In-Reply-To: <199709170622.IAA11373@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> from John Hay at "Sep 17, 97 08:22:02 am" To: jhay@mikom.csir.co.za (John Hay) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:18:24 -0500 (EST) Cc: davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk John Hay said: > > > rc files use the daemon class, which is too conservative... > > > > > > Perhaps we need a change in this class. If possible, in time to 2.2.5. > > > > It sounds like limits(1) might be needed in some cases. That's why > > it exists. I really don't think this is an issue that needs to be > > fiddled with in the default installation. If "daemon" resources > > don't suit a particular installation, then obviously they need to > > change it or use an alternative class with better tuned resources > > for a particular case, but there's no formula that will suit everyone > > in all cases. > > But if the shipped defaults does not work for most people, shouldn't > the shipped defaults change? I would guess that most FreeBSD boxes > are used as single-user machines, so maybe we should ship it with > more relaxed limits? At the moment the shipped defaults does not > seem to work for anything that I have, which is news servers, web > servers, development servers, mail servers or personal machines. > Or maybe we must specify for what kind of box the defaults is > suitable? > I think that we should apply the philosophy of 'least surprise' to the default config. Every system has a slightly different login-class mechanism (if any.) I think that wide-open (or nearly so) would be the 'least surprise.' Intelligent sysops, system administrators or vertical product suppliers will each have different needs for default limits. I think that the defaults should be 'intelligently high.' -- John dyson@freebsd.org jdyson@nc.com