Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:18:59 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco) Cc: terry@lambert.org, julian@whistle.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: still no response Message-ID: <199611071819.LAA10340@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199611070342.VAA10194@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Nov 6, 96 09:42:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The inetd already has a session limit. It's just not per service, it's > > per inetd, and it's compiled in. > > I thought that was a session spawning rate limit - not a session number > limit. Maybe I am wrong. The spawning rate limit is a soft limit. The session number limit is set external to the inetd (think: number of child processes). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611071819.LAA10340>