On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 09:35 AM, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> By filing PR docs/32041, Mark Blackman has reminded me of an issue that
> has been nagging me for some time now. As Mark points out, one of the
> likely problems in the sysadmin mag benchmark run last spring was that
> the
> system ran out of ephemeral ports. Unforunately, nobody caught this at
> the time, and the benchmarkers were unable to explain why freebsd hit a
> connection limit below that of the other OSes.
>
> Right now, we're still using the traditional port range of 1024-5000,
> which limits us to a little under 4000 distinct outgoing connections.
> AFAIK, other OSes have started transitioning to the now preferred port
> range of 49152-65535, which would give us about 4x more breathing room.
>
> Looking through the logs for in.h, I can see that peter attempted
> changing the port range to 20000-30000 about 6 years ago, but reverted
> the
> change because of firewall issues.
>
> My question is this: Is anyone aware of a reason that using 49152-65535
> by default would cause problems today?
FWIW, Mac OS X/Darwin has been shipping with this (high) range as the
default since "1.0". Hasn't caused any problems that I know of (or, at
least, that anyone's been able to pin on the change :-]).
Regards,
Justin
--
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large *
Institute for General Semantics | It's not whether you win or
lose...
| It's whether *I* win or lose.
*--------------------------------------*-------------------------------*
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
