From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 12 06:29:53 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA02430 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA02425 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id IAA17320; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:28:36 -0500 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199604121328.IAA17320@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: warning: maxusers > 64 To: mrcpu@cdsnet.net (Jaye Mathisen) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:28:35 -0500 (CDT) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Jaye Mathisen" at Apr 11, 96 03:59:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Why does it care? (2.1-stable, supped yesterday. (4/10)) As far as I can tell - it doesn't, it's just trying to warn you about a potentially silly setting. Last I checked, MAXUSERS drives several key kernel data structure sizes, among other things. Setting MAXUSERS to 256 might be disastrous on a box with 4MB RAM. I routinely run news servers with MAXUSERS==128 (64/128MB RAM). When we recently tried to upgrade Daily-Planet to what I'm told is a "Triton-clone" board that was able to handle 256MB RAM, I upped it to MAXUSERS=256, but the box was very unstable. Turned out to be the motherboard, not the setting. :-) ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/546-7968