From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 3 09:03:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF5316A4CE for ; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from out007.verizon.net (out007pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF38743D86 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:02:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([68.161.96.170]) by out007.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040103170204.MNKF9064.out007.verizon.net@mac.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:02:04 -0600 Message-ID: <3FF6F588.4050706@mac.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 12:02:00 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vahric MUHTARYAN References: <200401031005.i03A5Gxk022754@smtp.doruk.net.tr> In-Reply-To: <200401031005.i03A5Gxk022754@smtp.doruk.net.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out007.verizon.net from [68.161.96.170] at Sat, 3 Jan 2004 11:02:04 -0600 cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some questions about Tunning FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:03:55 -0000 Vahric MUHTARYAN wrote: > 1)in tuning man siad that " Setting vfs.vmiodirenable improve the performans > of sevices that manipulating a large number of file like Web Cache,large > Mail System and News System " But I don't agree with it for mail system, or > What type of mail systems can imporved with this settings ... [ ... ] Consider using Maildir-style mailboxes rather than MBOX-style. [cf procmail] > 2)Can I set Kern.maxfilesperproc=0 because I don't want to seperate > maxfilesize for seperate process ?! I mean I don't want to limit it for any > process ?! I'm not sure whether 0 means "unlimited" for that parameter. It's safer to set a reasonable limit to prevent a malicious or runaway process from hogging finite resources; set it to a few thousand or so and not worry about it. Unless you've got a monster news server or squid or something which wants lots of descriptors... > 3)I think setting kern.pc.somaxconn is not necessary because all programs > can handle their self listen queue size like Apache and Mail Programs . Yes, but it reasonable for the system (aka root) to set a maximum that no user process can exceed, just as other resource limits are handled-- man getrusage. > One sentence disturb me in tunning man, "Larger listen queue also do a > better job of fending off denial service attack" I can't imagine How ?! While your inbound pipe might be full of DoS traffic, there may still be some valid requests coming in, as well as local network traffic which is still getting through. A longer listen queue lets the machine at least try to service those connections rather than having them get dropped.... -- -Chuck