From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Apr 4 1:11:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from warez.scriptkiddie.org (uswest-dsl-142-38.cortland.com [209.162.142.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9A237B41B for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.69.11] (unknown [192.168.69.11]) by warez.scriptkiddie.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FF562D1A for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:11:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:12:48 -0800 (PST) From: Lamont Granquist To: Subject: Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes In-Reply-To: <20020404011807.GC93977@madman.nectar.cc> Message-ID: <20020404011102.M1245-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:07:13AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > 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. > > This falls in the same category as any other system tuning for > questionable benchmarks. It is certainly not a compelling reason to > break things. This issue has cost me cycles at work debugging this problem and has, in theory, cost my employers money. It is not just a benchmark issue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message