On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Aaron Mason
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Joachim Schipper
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:03PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
>>> 2009/11/18 Janusz Gumkowski :
>>> >> Is it at all possible to have more than 992 simultaneous authpf users
?
>>> >>
>>>
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Joachim Schipper
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:03PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
>> 2009/11/18 Janusz Gumkowski :
>> >> Is it at all possible to have more than 992 simultaneous authpf users ?
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> Yes, use more than one machine.
>>
>> > Digging out a
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:03PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
> 2009/11/18 Janusz Gumkowski :
> >> Is it at all possible to have more than 992 simultaneous authpf users ?
> >>
> >
>
> Yes, use more than one machine.
>
> > Digging out an old post of mine, still not having any real solution
> > but a c
2009/11/18 Janusz Gumkowski :
>> Is it at all possible to have more than 992 simultaneous authpf users ?
>>
>
Yes, use more than one machine.
> Digging out an old post of mine, still not having any real solution
> but a couple of ugly hacks instead, trying to get rid of them finally.
>
> To the
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 03:21:42PM +0100, Janusz Gumkowski wrote:
> I'm running out of PTYs on my authpf firewall.
> Simply, more than 992 (max pty limit) users are trying to log in
> simultaneously.
>
> In theory I could disable (in authpf.c) checking whether or not session
> has been successful
I'm running out of PTYs on my authpf firewall.
Simply, more than 992 (max pty limit) users are trying to log in
simultaneously.
In theory I could disable (in authpf.c) checking whether or not session
has been successfully allocated a pty, and force clients not to allocate
a pty when connecting.
B
6 matches
Mail list logo