Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:32:34 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org, julian@whistle.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: still no response Message-ID: <199611071832.MAA11058@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199611071819.LAA10340@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Nov 7, 96 11:18:59 am
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. Sorry, you are right. It _used_ to be a hard limit, and it used to be compiled in. I'm remembering running into this on *OS and having to build my own inetd from BSD sources so that I could play hack-the-constant... > The session number limit is set external to the inetd (think: number of > child processes). Yes, but that is not "per inetd, and it's compiled in". ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611071832.MAA11058>