Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:54:00 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. Message-ID: <20020322025040.C3059-100000@patrocles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200203202233.g2KMXcC61425@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:01:01 -0600 (CST), Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> said: > > > That would end up being a reduction below the current value; right now > > sockets > maxfiles with large maxuser values. Whether or not this is a > > necessary differential, I'm not sure. (With TIME_WAIT and FIN_WAIT_2 > > sockets, I believe that maxsockets should exceed maxfiles.) > > My point was that it's not necessary to enforce a limit on sockets, > specifically, because maxfiles (and user resource limits) will keep > users from opening too many sockets. We should probably look to > templating closed TCP connections, since they don't actually need a > socket at all (or most of the PCB). > > -GAWollman A TIME_WAIT cache or similar would be great, I agree. In that case, I'd think that you would want fewer sockets than files so that apps would always have free files available, even once sockets were depleted. In short, I think that it's advantageous having seperate limits, given that doing so is easy. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020322025040.C3059-100000>