Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:07:13 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.ORG>, <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes Message-ID: <20020404005838.P60053-100000@patrocles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <p0510150db8d1539dd305@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > What I don't see is why this must be made to -stable at all. > What would be the consequences if we simply left RELENG_4 > with the same port-range that it's always had? Note that > this is not a complaint on my part, it is only a request for > more information. The ephemeral port range determines the maximum number of simultaneous outbound connections that you can have. As pointed out in a PR (I don't recall the # offhand), our low limit was probably the reason that FreeBSD ran out of steam before the other OSes in the sysadmin benchmark last year. Normally I wouldn't change settings to tune for a benchmark, but there is no functional downside to this change. As Jacques points out, many sysadmins with busy servers _already_ make this change, as have a few other OSes. > Chances are pretty good that they would not notice any such > problems until after they have done the "installworld" step, > and thus it is not necessarily a simple matter to "just go > back" to their previous kernel. Sure it is. After an installkernel you always have kernel.old sitting around. This isn't a big deal, guys. Go find something better to make a fuss about. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404005838.P60053-100000>