Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes
Forgive me if I don't understand something. I presume you are changing the default values of net.inet.ip.portrange.first and net.inet.ip.portrange.last? If this is true, and it follows that you can change these back to their previous values, what is the fuss about? -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The practice of study only too often makes people mere repeaters and producers of cliches and sayings. Such study has been all but wasted. The product has taken the form in which we find it because it is an unsuitable graft upon an unprepared basis. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes
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. > 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. And it is a good change --- for a new operating system release. > Sure it is. After an installkernel you always have kernel.old sitting > around. You don't need the old kernel, anyway. You can just use the sysctl knobs. > This isn't a big deal, guys. Go find something better to make a fuss > about. Thanks for your consideration, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:53:25PM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: > As we have a RELENG_4_5 branch, I see no reason that I should hold off on > the change. It's mostly unimportant, not gratuitous. Well, Mike, I don't think I can put it more strongly. If you are insistent about making this change, I cannot stop you. I wish you would not. If it is not gratuitous, pray tell what benefit this change will bring. It will certainly snag a minority of folks, and that makes it a bad idea as far as I am concerned. On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:09:56PM -0800, Michael Sierchio wrote: > It isn't stable -- gratuitously updating on > a weekly or daily basis is for hobbyists. It's known to break things now > and then. We try very hard _not_ to break things. We break things only when there is a compelling reason to break them. Not because we just feel like it. > The idea of holding pending MFCs until we're in RC stage is far worse. As I implied in an earlier message, I would prefer that it never be merged to 4.x. > If you're interested in stability, you'll track RELENG_4_5, as Mike > suggests. I don't track RELENG_4_5. I _maintain_ the RELENG_4_5 and other security branches. On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:57:08PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > 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. Yes, it is worse. It probably will not happen until the run application X --- perhaps an ICQ client, or an FTP server, or whatever. It will fail, and for some people it will cost time to determine the cause and to repair it. This is not /so/ bad for someone tracking -STABLE, except that the whole problem can and should be avoided. > I would > feel a little better about making this change to -stable if > we knew what important (time-critical) issue that it was > fixing. BSD has used the low range ports ``forever''. There is absolutely no time-critical reason to change the default now. I don't think I'll be posting on the issue again, as the length of the thread will soon be disproportionate to the subject's importance, if it isn't already. :-) Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.nectar.cc/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Heads up, a bit: ephemeral port range changes
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
