On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Kip Macy wrote:
> You are correct -- what one really needs is a per user limit on files --
> there may already be something to that effect, although I do not know of
> it.
That's because you completely disregarded all of the explanations
for the current behavior tha
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Kip Macy wrote:
> Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might make sense for
> special cases e.g. a machine completely dedicated to one process -- It is
> dangerous at best for the general case. Any malicious program can make a
> machine running FreeBSD non-func
Obviously not from the default settings.
Typically limits are in place to protect something from something. This,
however, may be an exception.
-Kip
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might
You are correct -- what one really needs is a per user limit on files --
there may already be something to that effect, although I do not know of
it.
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Bryan Talbot wrote:
> At 04:23 PM 9/21/99 , Kip Macy wrote:
> >Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might mak
> Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might make sense for
> special cases e.g. a machine completely dedicated to one process -- It is
> dangerous at best for the general case. Any malicious program can make a
> machine running FreeBSD non-functional. The default should be set with
On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 04:23:19PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote:
> Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might make sense for
> special cases e.g. a machine completely dedicated to one process -- It is
> dangerous at best for the general case. Any malicious program can make a
> machine runn
At 04:23 PM 9/21/99 , Kip Macy wrote:
>Thanks. Although having maxfiles == maxfilesperproc might make sense for
>special cases e.g. a machine completely dedicated to one process -- It is
>dangerous at best for the general case. Any malicious program can make a
>machine running FreeBSD non-function
